The Hillary fallout

May 24th, 2008 1:32 pm · 9 comments

The gaffe of all gaffes, it seems.

I tend to agree with Charlie C. in the previous thread that Hillary didn’t mean it as all that. Well, of course not. And she does, of course, “regret” the whole thing. But it does lend ominous overtones to her whole failure to see the inevitable and act accordingly.

And it was illuminating in that I think it showed her bitterness - a bitterness that now drives her on.

Via Sullivan, Hillzoy over at Obsidian Wings observes:

I am aware that it must be hard to face the fact that you’ve lost. But it became clear that she was not going to win the nomination months ago — I would say after Wisconsin, but certainly after Texas. Moreover, this is not unprecedented. People lose the nomination every four years. Most of the time, they do not stay on until it is mathematically impossible for them to win; they leave when it has become clear that they will not win. They do not complain about disenfranchising all the states with later primaries, they do not threaten to keep their supporters home, and they certainly do not threaten “open civil war” if they don’t get nominated for Vice President. On those rare occasions when some candidate does this in the absence of some truly monumental issue, we normally think that that candidate is a narcissistic and unprincipled person who has just shown why s/he should never, ever be President.

There is absolutely no reason not to apply these same standards to Hillary Clinton. Right now, instead of floating demands in the press and comparing herself to abolitionists and suffragists, she could be telling her supporters that she lost fair and square; that while there was a lot of sexism in the campaign, there was racism as well, and that sexism does not explain why a candidate with literally every institutional advantage over her opponent lost the nomination. She could be reaching out to the voters who supported her in places where Obama has had trouble, and urging them to vote for him. She could, in a word, be doing the right thing: trying to earn that respect she seems to want.

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

I can’t imagine a better demonstration of why she should not be President or Vice President. Nor can I imagine a better demonstration of why some of us who are committed feminists are not happy with her as our standard-bearer. She lost. It happens. If she were an adult or a professional, she would deal with it. Apparently, she is neither.

Share and Enjoy: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Netvouz
  • DZone
  • ThisNext
  • MisterWong
  • Wists

  9 comments  Tags: Hillary

There are currently 9 comments on this blog post
View Topic | Comment on this blog
UncommonSense
5/24/08
2:41 PM
Perhaps, just perhaps (though it is a Clinton so I doubt it) she is staying in on principle. I take issue with anyone who says so-and-so should get out of the race, they can't win...etc, etc, etc.



Maybe they damn-well have something important to say. Or, they could hold a belief so dear they cannot drop out and still feel content with themselves.



If we're willing to have a process, such as the nominating venue, then we need to accept that it may not be all that pretty. In fact, at times it may be downright disgusting....but then again, isn't that why we get the government we deserve?

ctravel
5/25/08
2:20 PM
Wow! Did you hear Keith Olbermann on Clinton's Assassination remark???

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CB6kAXD4WAA

Powerful!
SproutingUp
5/26/08
7:03 PM
The purpose of the primary is to let every state vote, go to the convention, choose your nominee and let them start campaigning against the other party. I see no reason to cut that process short. Every state deserves to vote, the convention should be held and the nominee should be named after the convention is over.

There are several people who just plain don't like Hillary or the Clintons overall and that's their right, but she's a viable candidate and BOTH candidates still need superdelegates to get the nomination no matter how many are won and lost in the next few primaries. Let the process continue, let the convention happen and unify in the end. Those are the rules that were set up aren't they? One side wants to use the "rules are rules" as far as Florida and Michigan go, but want to ignore the rules when it comes to going all the way to the convention. The other side wants to change the rules for Florida and Michigan but stick to the rules about going to the convention.

From what I've seen, Obama broke the rules in Florida by running his cable TV ad, he doesn't have a moral high ground. By breaking the rules, there needs to be a sanction. The rules were foolhearted to begin with and denied important general election states their primary votes because the opposing party was in power and moved the date. Since republicans moved the date, the democrats should not punish their own party for it. Obama wasn't required to remove his name from the ballot in Michigan (and didn't remove it in Florida, which makes no sense, either both or neither). Any rule breaking in this respect has been done by the Obama campaign and they deserve to be sanctioned for breaking the rules. I believe a fair sanction would be to allow the Florida delegates to stand since he broke the rules there or to take away any delegates he won in Florida in response to his breaking of the rules. In Michigan, they will have to allow some compromise on what the standing total is since Obama refused to agree to a re-vote. His name wasn't on the ballot, he gets no delegates. It quickly changes the entire dynamics of the race.

It is extremely important that the DNC overhaul their primary process before 2012 because this has been one nightmare after another. They can either change it to "winner take all" including superdelegates or they can change it to a more popular vote based system, but they should, in no way, continue this proportional delegate business.

As for Hillary's comment, she's made statements that were wrong several times. So has Obama. So has McCain. Nobody is "gaffe-proof". It does seem the MSM jumps on Clinton's every word and ignores Obama's major blunders or covers them up. I've actually been checking Fox news occaisionally just to see news that doens't pander to Obama, although it is far from "fair and balanced". At least it gives the extreme right spin to match the extreme left spin of CNN and MSNBC and the truth can be found somewhere in the middle.

Olberman is a hack, a moron, a self-righteous, sexist pig who is upset that the world doesn't cater to his every demand. He's shooting for Press Secretary and knows Clinton won't give it to him. With the bulging veins on his forehead and the inevitable annurism that will occur at any time, neither will Obama. The man needs to get on some sort of medication to help him relax before he has a stroke on air.

Clinton pointed out that the race doesn't end neatly after Super Tuesday. It can go on through the month of June and beyond, and probably will. She used poor examples and was called to task on it, but I don't believe she meant the words she said to mean what pundits are claiming.

ctravel
5/26/08
7:27 PM
SproutingUp said:
QUOTE
From what I've seen, Obama broke the rules in Florida by running his cable TV ad, he doesn't have a moral high ground.


SproutingUp - Please get your facts straight so you stop spreading this kind of misinformation! Obama's ad in Florida was a national ad not a state ad. It wasn't possible to make a nationwide cable ad by that did not include Florida.

As far as Olberman goes . . . he's probably the only news person on TV today (besides Bill Moyers) who is willing to speak truth to power.

Face it, Hillary's campaign is over. The longer she stays in the more harm she does to Obama which is probably is her ultimate goal now as she tries to position herself for a 2012 run.


SproutingUp
5/26/08
7:45 PM
QUOTE(ctravel @ May 26 2008, 07:27 PM) [snapback]393740[/snapback]
SproutingUp said:

SproutingUp - Please get your facts straight so you stop spreading this kind of misinformation! Obama's ad in Florida was a national ad not a state ad. It wasn't possible to make a nationwide cable ad by that did not include Florida.




I have my facts straight. Obama campaigned in Florida as a result of the REGIONAL cable ad he bought. He had the money to buy the same ad in surrounding states and leaving Florida out, but chose not to do that. He broke the rules, period.



QUOTE(ctravel @ May 26 2008, 07:27 PM) [snapback]393740[/snapback]


Face it, Hillary's campaign is over. The longer she stays in the more harm she does to Obama which is probably is her ultimate goal now as she tries to position herself for a 2012 run.






Obama is doing enough damage to himself, There is no way he will stand up to the GOP attack machine, he cries when anyone says anything even slightly derogatory against his lack of policy and cries racism. That won't cut it in the general election. Hillary has been very easy on him, much more than she should have been.

ctravel
5/26/08
8:29 PM
QUOTE
WASHINGTON, May 26 (Xinhua) -- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter has urged Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton to "give it up" when the primary season ends early June, a CNN report said Monday.


Thank you Jimmy Carter! In early June we will see many of the rest of the superdelegates weigh in on this and force Hillary out of the race.


dragonrider
5/26/08
8:47 PM
I wonder who Sprouting up is supporting for president?
2fat2ride
5/26/08
9:27 PM
QUOTE(Lancaster Online @ May 24 2008, 01:35 PM) [snapback]393288[/snapback]


Post your thoughts and comments about this blog post.


I struggle with Hillary's obsession with staying in. It seems that many people on this thread, and even Gil himself, have argued that she has proven that she is a viable candidate and yet, I see nothing of the sort. Despite being in this crazy race for several months, you still have to dig to get at any important issues that she stands up for---the gas tax isn't important (and the fact that she is ignoring economists is another issue) and her Universal health care is hardly noteworthy since it seems it has been her mission for ten years and her vision of Iraq is not exactly revolutionary thought.

In fact, by staying in, all she has managed to do is go very deep into debt in search of a near statistical impossibility ...not exactly the role model the nation needs, nor anyone I would entrust to get the country out of a very deep debt hole.

But, lately, I have been even more troubled by another, much bigger question. Many have argued that this DNC race will get people involved, will get them interested and will help to enroll more dem. voters. But what if the opposite were true?

I don't mean to sound rude...but it seems to me, after watching the DNC race go on and on and on...that I really don't think it matters who wins in the end. McCain, Clinton, Obama...the line is nearly the same...oh sure, one candidate might want more of one thing while another wants less, but their true idealogy seems right in line with the way America has been going for the past 20 years. The reality is that all seem to be working so hard to court the voter that they come across as rather robotic with hardly an ingenious or innovative thought between the three.

I don't want more or less, I want different.

And I don't think I am the only one to think this. For as serious as we have been taking all this election hoopla, it seems others don't care. I went to see F.W. deClerk (Nobel Peace Prize 1993) speak at E-town a few months ago and was surprised to hear his opinion on who he thought would make a better next president...he basically said it didn't matter...that any of them would do just fine....and I also just heard an interview with another foreign diplomat who suggested the same thing...that it didn't matter who won the presidential race in the U.S., that fundamentally the course and policies of the U.S. were so fixed and controlled that no president would be able to make any deep impacts on any American policy...domestic or foreign.

And I gotta admit, as much as I really want to go for Hillary or Obama, the extended race has made me think critically about the deeper issues, and neither are broadcasting any real signs that they want to truly change America. I think they both want to tweak it a little...but no real change. More change than McCain, but still...very little change in comparison to what is needed and what is possible at this point in time.

segjt
5/26/08
9:47 PM
QUOTE(ctravel @ May 26 2008, 07:27 PM) [snapback]393740[/snapback]
SproutingUp said:

SproutingUp - Please get your facts straight so you stop spreading this kind of misinformation! Obama's ad in Florida was a national ad not a state ad. It wasn't possible to make a nationwide cable ad by that did not include Florida.

As far as Olberman goes . . . he's probably the only news person on TV today (besides Bill Moyers) who is willing to speak truth to power.

Face it, Hillary's campaign is over. The longer she stays in the more harm she does to Obama which is probably is her ultimate goal now as she tries to position herself for a 2012 run.




Hillary is doing this country a favor...the longer she stays in, the weaker Obama becomes in the general election....Thanks Hillary - for getting John McCain elected POTUS.

View Topic | Comment on this blog