Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- ********0
"The problem the Clinton partisans face right now is that Obama didn't say what Wright said, and people are too smart to realize that just because you attend a church or are friends with someone, doesn't mean you agree with them 100 percent. (Just like you guys don't agree with everything I write, yet you continue to return.)
Pew Research Center. 3/19-22. Registered voters. MoEs: 3.5% for registered voter sample, 6% for GOP sample, and 5.5% for Dem sample. (2/20-24 results)
General election matchups
McCain 43 (43)
Obama 50 (49)McCain 45 (44)
Clinton 50 (49)Other surveys show different numbers, but bottom line here, Clinton doesn't fare better than Obama. Her electability argument, as can be seen in plenty of other surveys, doesn't hold any water.
Primary
Clinton 39 (40)
Obama 49 (49)After all the Wright ups and downs, this is essentially treading water over the last month.
Obama's handling of the Wright situation
Excel/Good Fair/Poor
Tot 51 42
Rep 33 61
Dem 66 28
Ind 48 42Obama Supporters 84 12
Clinton Supporters 43 52Even Clinton supporters are generally split. Fact is, he handled it damn well.
Now let's look at how White Democratic voters see the two Democratic candidates:
Obama Clinton
Inspiring 80 65
Down-to-earth 78 63
Honest 79 66
Patriotic 78 90
Phony 16 30
Hard-to-like 13 43Note the "phony" numbers, and that was before the Tusla stuff exploded. This poll was finished last Saturday. So Clinton sort of walked into a trap, reinforcing a trait that people already harbored against her. I wouldn't have called her a "phony" a week ago, but now the evidence is mounting on that front. I suspect the next edition of this poll in a month will show a much larger spread on that question than 16-30.
That is, unless Clinton has a speech lined up to address those concerns."
- ********0
"ABC News' Political Director David Chalian reports that a Democratic operative unaffiliated with either campaign and familiar with the reaction to the letter among Members of Congress says, "Members of Congress - who are superdelegates - make up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee" or DCCC from which the donors seemed to be threatening to withhold funds.
"Threatening the DCCC is equal to threatening the superdelegates Sen. Hillary Clinton's trying to court. The Clinton donor letter will just push undeclared superdelegates in Congress leaning toward Obama to endorse him sooner. It also reinforces the narrative that she'll destroy the party to win."
Then, we've got an Obama supporter donating the max to the DCCC.
A Democratic source in Washington provides the following letter from a major Democratic donor as evidence that yesterday's "shakedown" letter to Speaker Pelosi is having an effect antithetical to its intention.
Leslie Walker Burlock of San Francisco writes yesterday to Nancy Pelosi pledging the max $28,000 to the DCCC. The Dem source says Ms. Burlock wrote after learning of the letter from the group of heavy hitters, a move that Burlock disagreed with.
I spoke with Ms. Burlock by phone. She says that yes, she agrees with Nancy Pelosi's stance on superdelegates, and that yes, she is an Obama supporter. But she demurred when asked several different ways whether or not her pledge comes as a rebuttal to the letter from the others. She didn't deny it, however.
And now, MoveOn is springing into action:
Dear MoveOn member,
This is pretty outrageous: a group of Clinton-supporting big Democratic donors are threatening to stop supporting Democrats in Congress because Nancy Pelosi said that the people, not the superdelegates, should decide the Presidential nomination.
It's the worst kind of insider politics-billionaires bullying our elected leaders into ignoring the will of the voters.
But when we all pool our resources, together we're stronger than the fat cats. So let's tell Nancy Pelosi that if she keeps standing up for regular Americans, thousands of us will have her back. And we can more than match whatever the CEOs and billionaires refuse to contribute.
Clicking here will add your name to our statement:
That Donor letter has the be the biggest kind of stupid since Kindergate.
A well deserved backlash."
- rainman0
Good Timing...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/2384…
- ********0
Obama's current 8-point advantage ties his largest lead of the Gallup Poll Daily tracking program, along with a 50% to 42% showing in Feb. 28-March 1 polling. Obama clearly has weathered the Wright storm, while the dark clouds have shifted to Clinton over whether she has exaggerated her foreign policy credentials. This week she has had to defend her repeated claim that she came under sniper fire while visiting Bosnia as first lady, which news video clearly disputed.
- ********0
Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) today called on Hillary Rodham Clinton to drop out of the presidential race, saying there is no way the New York senator can wrest the nomination from her rival Barack Obama.
"There is no way that Sen. Clinton is going to win enough delegates to get the nomination," Leahy, an Obama supporter, said in an interview with Vermont Public Radio this morning. "She ought to withdraw, and she ought to be backing Sen. Obama."
Saying Republican John McCain "has been making one gaffe after another [and] is getting a free ride," Leahy said the sniping between Democrats hurts them more than anything the Arizona senator has thrown their way.
Leahy was the first prominent superdelegate to call on the New York senator to withdraw, but his comments came on the same day that Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean urged superdelegates to make their preferences public.
- ********0
"I think we've reached a signal point in the campaign. This is the point where, with Hillary Clinton, either you get it or you don't. There's no dodging now. You either understand the problem with her candidacy, or you don't. You either understand who she is, or not. And if you don't, after 16 years of watching Clintonian dramas, you probably never will.
That's what the Bosnia story was about. Her fictions about dodging bullets on the tarmac -- and we have to hope they were lies, because if they weren't, if she thought what she was saying was true, we are in worse trouble than we thought -- either confirmed what you already knew (she lies as a matter of strategy, or, as William Safire said in 1996, by nature) or revealed in an unforgettable way (videotape! Smiling girl in pigtails offering flowers!) what you feared (that she lies more than is humanly usual, even politically usual).
But either you get it now or you never will. That's the importance of the Bosnia tape.
Many in the press get it, to their dismay, and it makes them uncomfortable, for it sours life to have a person whose character you feel you cannot admire play such a large daily role in your work. But I think it's fair to say of the establishment media at this point that it is well populated by people who feel such a lack of faith in Mrs. Clinton's words and ways that it amounts to an aversion. They are offended by how she and her staff operate. They try hard to be fair. They constantly have to police themselves.
Not that her staff isn't policing them too. Mrs. Clinton's people are heavy-handed in that area, letting producers and correspondents know they're watching, weighing, may have to take this higher. There's too much of this in politics, but Hillary's campaign takes it to a new level.
It's not only the press. It's what I get as I walk around New York, which used to be thick with her people. I went to a Hillary fund-raiser at Hunter College about a month ago, paying for a seat in the balcony and being ushered up to fill the more expensive section on the floor, so frantic were they to fill seats.
I sat next to a woman, a New York Democrat who'd been for Hillary from the beginning and still was. She was here. But, she said, "It doesn't seem to be working." She shrugged, not like a brokenhearted person but a practical person who'd missed all the signs of something coming. She wasn't mad at the voters. But she was no longer so taken by the woman who soon took the stage and enacted joy.
The other day a bookseller told me he'd been reading the opinion pages of the papers and noting the anti-Hillary feeling. Two weeks ago he realized he wasn't for her anymore. It wasn't one incident, just an accumulation of things. His experience tracks this week's Wall Street Journal/NBC poll showing Mrs. Clinton's disapproval numbers have risen to the highest level ever in the campaign, her highest in fact in seven years.
* * *
You'd think she'd pivot back to showing a likable side, chatting with women, weeping, wearing the bright yellows and reds that are thought to appeal to her core following, older women. Well, she's doing that. Yet at the same time, her campaign reveals new levels of thuggishness, though that's the wrong word, for thugs are often effective. This is mere heavy-handedness.
On Wednesday a group of Mrs. Clinton's top donors sent a letter to the speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, warning her in language that they no doubt thought subtle but that reflected a kind of incompetent menace, that her statements on the presidential campaign may result in less money for Democratic candidates for the House. Ms. Pelosi had said that in her view the superdelegates should support the presidential candidate who wins the most pledged delegates in state contests. The letter urged her to "clarify" her position, which is "clearly untenable" and "runs counter" to the superdelegates' right to make "an informed, individual decision" about "who would be the party's strongest nominee." The signers, noting their past and huge financial support, suggested that Ms. Pelosi "reflect" on her comments and amend them to reflect "a more open view."
Barack Obama's campaign called it inappropriate and said Mrs. Clinton should "reject the insinuation." But why would she? All she has now is bluster. Her supporters put their threat in a letter, not in a private meeting. By threatening Ms. Pelosi publicly, they robbed her of room to maneuver. She has to defy them or back down. She has always struck me as rather grittier than her chic suits, high heels and unhidden enthusiasm may suggest. We'll see.
What, really, is Mrs. Clinton doing? She is having the worst case of cognitive dissonance in the history of modern politics. She cannot come up with a credible, realistic path to the nomination. She can't trace the line from "this moment's difficulties" to "my triumphant end." But she cannot admit to herself that she can lose. Because Clintons don't lose. She can't figure out how to win, and she can't accept the idea of not winning. She cannot accept that this nobody from nowhere could have beaten her, quietly and silently, every day. (She cannot accept that she still doesn't know how he did it!)
She is concussed. But she is a scrapper, a fighter, and she's doing what she knows how to do: scrap and fight. Only harder. So that she ups the ante every day. She helped Ireland achieve peace. She tried to stop Nafta. She's been a leader for 35 years. She landed in Bosnia under siege and bravely dodged bullets. It was as if she'd watched the movie "Wag the Dog," with its fake footage of a terrified refugee woman running frantically from mortar fire, and found it not a cautionary tale about manipulation and politics, but an inspiration.
* * *
What struck me as the best commentary on the Bosnia story came from a poster called GI Joe who wrote in to a news blog: "Actually Mrs. Clinton was too modest. I was there and saw it all. When Mrs. Clinton got off the plane the tarmac came under mortar and machine gun fire. I was blown off my tank and exposed to enemy fire. Mrs. Clinton without regard to her own safety dragged me to safety, jumped on the tank and opened fire, killing 50 of the enemy." Soon a suicide bomber appeared, but Mrs. Clinton stopped the guards from opening fire. "She talked to the man in his own language and got him [to] surrender. She found that he had suffered terribly as a result of policies of George Bush. She defused the bomb vest herself." Then she turned to his wounds. "She stopped my bleeding and saved my life. Chelsea donated the blood."
Made me laugh. It was like the voice of the people answering back. This guy knows that what Mrs. Clinton said is sort of crazy. He seems to know her reputation for untruths. He seemed to be saying, "I get it."
- never thought I'd agree with Peggy Noonan about anything!********
- peg noonan: cold hearted bitch who mistakes hatred for thinking, opinion for truth, and smugness for compassion.********
- never thought I'd agree with Peggy Noonan about anything!
- ********0
Mike Lux reports on something we already know. The party elders, the superdelegates, and the informed party activists know that Hillary Clinton can't win and they want this race over. However, Lux actually talks to superdelegates, and what he is hearing is that they are collectively a bunch of cowards that desperately want the people of Pennsylvania to tell the Clintons the race is over so they won't have to.
They don't want the Clintons and McAuliffe and those donors who signed the letter to stop raising money for them. They don't want Carville and Wolfson to call them a traitor. They don't want all the behind-the-scenes trashing that they know will come.
There is a logic behind James Carville (who gets his paycheck from CNN) telling Bill Richardson that he is a Judas. It's pure intimidation. And it is working. Reid and Pelosi and Dean and Gore are all trying to be polite about it, but their insistence that the process not continue all the way to the convention is a way of telling the Clintons that they have no path to the nomination.
Dodd and Leahy have been less polite. But pulling out the victim card isn't going to change a thing.
In a conversation with two Democratic allies, she compared the situation to the "big boys" trying to bully a woman, according to interviews with them.
Who is really doing the bullying here?
I'll admit that in a boxing match, no one likes the see it go to the judges. People pay to see a knockout. And that's what we need to deliver to the Clintons, because they seem to think they can buy off or frighten the judges into throwing the bout.
Mrs. Clinton’s aides said they could see no circumstance in which she would withdraw unless she lost Pennsylvania on April 22. Two senior advisers and one close ally said they would urge her to quit the race if she lost Indiana two weeks later, on May 6.
We're doing everything we can think of to make sure Clinton loses Pennsylvania, but it really shouldn't matter.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, issued the most unvarnished statement Friday, saying Clinton "has every right, but not a very good reason, to remain a candidate for as long as she wants to."
Sen. Leahy is absolutely correct. Clinton has no 'good reason' to stay in the race because she is just angering and frightening people. And once she loses the clout to frighten people it won't be very pleasant for the Clintons. At that point, all that is left is the anger. Read between the lines:
Mr. Dean said he wanted the contest settled well before the convention at the end of August. He urged the superdelegates, uncommitted party leaders and elected officials, to unify behind a candidate soon after the last nominating contests on June 3.
"I don’t think superdelegates should be waiting for the convention," he said. "There’s no reason they can’t make up their mind now or in the last several weeks. Ideally, it would be good to know who the nominee is by July 1."
The number of people that want this nomination wrapped up in Obama's favor is now overwhelming, so they should make that clear to the Pennsylvania voters. Don't put all the onus on the Obama campaign to cut through all the noise. They can't make an effective inevitability argument anyway. That's normally the job of surrogates. But in this case, it should be the job of cowardly superdelegates. Get off your asses and tell the world how you're gonna vote. Don't be afraid of Terry McAuliffe and James Carville...they'll never have any power in the Democratic Party again. They can go back to asking for leniency for Scooter Libby, or whatever else they like to do.
- in the end Hillary will elect Obama : the worse she gets, the more demonized, the better for him.********
- in the end Hillary will elect Obama : the worse she gets, the more demonized, the better for him.
- monkeyshine0
Ok...my turn.
Pat Leahy and Ed Rendell need to pipe down
Posted March 29, 2008 | 11:48 AM (EST)I've argued for some time that Hillary Clinton is almost certain to lose the Democratic presidential nomination -- but I am not in the "Hillary should drop out" camp.
Sen. Pat Leahy, the veteran Democratic Vermonter, yesterday became the latest to call for Mrs. Clinton's withdrawal from the race. But the one person who can shut down Hillary Clinton's campaign before the nominating convention is Hillary Clinton, and she has every right to stay in the race until convention delegates (super-, pleged-, etc.) cast their ballots. I don't think she will, but she can.
Put yourself in her shoes. I understand that outside of the Hillary Kool-Aid Caucus it's fashionable to view President and Mrs. Clinton as power-hungry monsters who would rather see Dick Cheney coronated as emperor before someone not named Clinton is elected president. But imagine for a moment this scenario: Suppose she really believes that Barack Obama is George McGovern part two (or part too), that he will be painted as too-liberal, too-inexperienced, too soft, and too black (who knows how many more Jeremiah Wright tapes are waiting for their moments in the sun?) by the GOP attack machine and that his nomination would likely lead not only to President McCain, but President McCain with a landslide mandate to move our troops out of Iraq and right into Iran?
I'm not saying that's a correct analysis of Obama's general election prospects -- I don't think it is -- but the issue here is whether it's a reasonable one. Can someone reasonably look at Barack Obama and see electoral disaster? Yes. And can someone reasonably look at the last eight years and conclude that this election will be vitally important to the course of the country? Yes.
So if you were the last, best chance to stem the tide of domestic and foreign fiascos that have marked the Bush presidency, what would you do? Drop out because Pat Leahy asked? (Or, perhaps later, Howard Dean? Or Al Gore?) Or fight like hell until hope is extinguished?
(I'm not claiming to have divined Hillary Clinton's motives, or those of her aides -- I doubt there's a single reason for her remaining in the race any more than there was a single reason that we invaded Iraq.)
But here's a practical reason why Leahy and the others should quiet down: Party unity. There is a core of Hillary Clinton supporters who are deeply invested in her candidacy who won't be any more pleased by her being shoved out by party elders than would Obama-files if he were trumped by superdelegates.
All of that said, however, Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, a Clintonite, cannot have had a straight face yesterday when he said this, quoted in the New York Times:
"Just flip it for a second," Mr. Rendell said. "Let's say Senator Clinton was ahead by about 110 delegates and ahead by less than 1 percent of the vote cast, and she and her supporters started to call on Senator Obama to get out. Just picture what the media would be saying. They'd be saying you're being racist, you're being everything in the world. It's nuts! It's nuts!"
Seriously? Is there any doubt that if Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row and had a virtually insurmountable pledged delegate deficit that Rendell and other Clintonites would be calling for his withdrawal? Come on, gov.
- "Seriously? Is there any doubt that if Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row and had a virtually insurmountable pledged delegate deficit that Rendell and other Clintonites would be calling for his withdrawal? Come on, gov."********
- pledged delegate deficit that Rendell and other Clintonites would be calling for his withdrawal? Come on, gov."********
- Leahy is you will remember the senator Cheney said to go fuck yourself tp. A champ Mr Leahy is.********
- "Seriously? Is there any doubt that if Obama had lost 11 primaries in a row and had a virtually insurmountable pledged delegate deficit that Rendell and other Clintonites would be calling for his withdrawal? Come on, gov."
- ********0
"I have noted a number of myths amongst the comments here as to why Hillary should stay in the race. Here are ten enduring, kudzu-like myths, with the debunking they sorely need.
Myth: This race is tied.
No, actually, it's not. Obama has the lead in number of states won, in pledged delegates and in overall delegates. Nothing will happen in the remaining primaries to substantially change that. As to the one thing Hillary does lead in, superdelegates, her quickly shrinking margin is among DNC personnel only. When you look at the elected superdelegates, Congressman, Senators and Governors (i.e. people who actually work with both Obama and Clinton) Obama leads there, too.
Myth: Okay, the popular vote is tied.
There are people who claim that because of the 3% separation, that Obama's lead in the popular vote is a "statistical tie." This is a myth because, when you can actually count things, there's no need of statistics and no such thing as a margin of error. The popular vote is not an estimate based on a sampling, like a poll. Like the general election, there are winners and losers and, so far, Obama is the winner.
Myth: Fine, but what if we count electoral votes? NOW Hillary is ahead!
Not so much. The proportions of electoral votes to population versus delegates to population are pretty comparable. So if you allocated electors proportionally in the same manner that you allocate delegates, Obama is still ahead. If you allocate them on a winner-take-all basis, then that would be the same as allocating the delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so why bring electors into it?
Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.
This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win.
Myth: Very well, then, Mr. Smarty-Math. But if we counted Michigan and Florida, THEN Hillary would be winning!
Nooo, she wouldn't. The margin would depend on how you allocate the delegates, but Obama would still be ahead. And he'd still be about 100,000 ahead in the popular vote, too, despite not even being on the ballot in Michigan. However, it would enhance Hillary's chances of catching up in the remaining races.
Myth: Ah HA! So Dean is keeping them out just to help Obama! And Obama is keeping them out.
That's two myths, but I'll treat it like one. The only people who can come up with a solution to this problem are the states themselves, to be presented to the Rules and Regulations Committee of the DNC for ratification. It was Rules and Regs, not Howard Dean, who ruled that Florida and Michigan were breaking the rules when they presented their original primary plans. If the two states cannot come up with a plan to reselect delegates, they can try to seat whatever delegates were chosen in the discounted primaries by appealing to the Democratic Convention's Credentialing Committee, which includes many members from Rules and Bylaws.
Myth: If they don't get seated until the convention but a nominee is selected before these poor people get counted then these states are disenfranchised.
There are two ways to debunk this myth: semantically and practically. The first is based on the word "disenfranchised:" these people have not been deprived of their right to vote. Through the actions of their states, their votes don't impact the outcome. Now, you may say that that is specious semantics (Myth: I do say that!) but practically speaking, this is the usual effect of the nominating process, anyway. All of the Republican primaries since McCain clinched the nomination have been meaningless, but those voters are not disenfranchised.
Florida and Michigan tried to become more relevant in the process by breaking the rules. They risked becoming irrelevant instead.
Myth: Well, I say they are disenfranchised, and Hillary Clinton is their champion.
Only when it suits her. Last fall, when the decision was first made to flush 100% of Michigan and Florida delegates, Clinton firmly ratified it. That was because the typical punishment of only 50% representation also kept the candidates from raising money in those states. Figuring that she would wrap up the nomination handily anyway, the clear front-runner agreed with all the other candidates - including Obama - to completely "disenfranchise" those two states.
Myth: Well, never mind 2007. She's doing more now to bring them in.
Not really. Recent stories in the St. Petersburg Times political blog said that 1) the Obama camp has reached out to the Florida Democratic party about a compromise and that 2) the Clinton camp will discuss nothing else but re-votes, which are legally, practically and politically dead.
Myth: Whatever! Hillary can still win! I know she can! She and her 37% positive rating will sweep through the remaining primaries and Michigan and Florida, winning 70% of everything and superdelegates will flock to her banner and Barack Obama will personally nominate her at the Convention and John McCain will give up and George Bush will even quit early so she can take over and... and... and... can I have a glass of water?
Yes, and you should lie down, too."
- monkeyshine0
Until we decide in favor of a single nationwide primary, this is the crazy process we have and if Hillary wants to take this all the way to the convention, that is her right...as it was Ronald Reagan's right in 1972.
- no one's saying it's not her right... they're saying that her willingness to do this shows her real priorities********
- of course she can but should she? Question of judgement. Pyrrhic victory.********
- no one's saying it's not her right... they're saying that her willingness to do this shows her real priorities
- monkeyshine0
Yes, that she's a monster, medusa, plotting a nasty little surprise for Obama any day now, etc...but how do you know what her real priorities are? Like the article above I pasted in, how do you know she doesn't really believe that she's the one to beat McCain? Or at least that it's too close to call (I've seen varying polls about who has the edge over McCain and you have to admit that neither are clear stand-outs).
- we all draw conclusions about candidates based on our own interpretations of what we see, hear and read********
- indeedmonkeyshine
- if you don't feel an intuitive aversion to this candidate, I for one have no desire to convince you otherwise********
- we all draw conclusions about candidates based on our own interpretations of what we see, hear and read
- mg330
The electoral votes argument is ridiculous. This isn't the General Election, as Hilary fails to see.
"Myth: But if we did do it like the Electoral College, that proves Hillary is more electable than Obama, because of states like California.
This is perhaps the saddest little myth of all. It's ridiculous to suggest that Obama will lose New York and California to McCain because Clinton won them in the primaries. No, come November, those states will join with Obama's Illinois to provide 40% of the electors necessary for him to win."
Exactly. Hillary really enjoys thinking that, because she wins a state now, if Obama is the nominee, that state won't get his vote. Seriously stupid.
- ********0
what bothers me isn't that she believes it, but that she doesn't believe it, and still cynically promotes the concept in hopes that others will
- monkeyshine0
"if you don't feel an intuitive aversion to this candidate, I for one have no desire to convince you otherwise"
My comments have nothing to do with trying to push Hillary over Obama...but I'm sick of this push to force her out...and by the likes of Leahy??? Oh, did he just find his b*lls underneath his bed? Where's he been? There are have been plenty of important issues to take a stand on and now he finds his voice? Well, screw him.
And I'm not keen on your arrogance. You have a bullying tone (not uncommon around many Obama enthusiasts) and it's contrary to the voice and spirit that Obama has been putting out there.
- luckily obama is a far better man than I. I'm more like Hillary********
- and I apologize for the bullying tone, but I selfishly started this thread to exorcise resentment, not to be equitable********
- the first post said it pretty plainly********
- luckily obama is a far better man than I. I'm more like Hillary
- flashbender0
I hope she sues when she loses. That'll be awesome.
- ukit0
The problem is that when a candidate forces a fight at the convention, the party almost always loses the election. Also, not having a nominee gives the Republicans a long time to prepare. John McCain could have a whole half a year head start on the Democrats.
So, sure, most are happy with Hillary staying in for the time being, but if you look at the remaining contests, there is almost no way mathematically she can still win. She would have to win the remaining contests by like 70 to 30 margins, which just ain't gonna happen. But if she stays in all the way to the convention, she is basically dooming the entire party just for her 2-3% chance of becoming the nominee, and it's hard to see that as anything more than selfish.
- mg330
Entitlement is my least favorite attribute of the human species. This is why I gag furiously when I see Hillary on the television.
- human species? politicians live on teh stuff , its like air or water to them.********
- human species? politicians live on teh stuff , its like air or water to them.
- ********0
"As an ardent Obama supporter, I am calling on the Senator from New York to stay in the race for as long as she can stand it. Longer even. I think the calls for her withdrawal are deeply troubling, and even hysterical. Anti-democratic even. This is how an election works. And even though this particular one seems to be poorly designed at best, we are in the midst of the process. Voting: A right, may I remind Mr Leahy, et al -- for which people have fought hard and died.
Let me be clear: I believe that the Clinton campaign has been simply tragic. It is an object lesson in failed promise and panicked, unstable, virulent war-game tactics. It has been marked by shallowness of the first order, and by the relentlessly divisive behavior of a cynical staff. She is fatally compromised in her stature as a credible voice, even perhaps in the senate, and her husband, an ex-president of the United States, is in danger of squandering what is left of his tattered reputation. The utter absence of statesmanship from the Clintons actually is painful to watch. There are lies about being under fire, there are semi- secret conduits to Matt Drudge, there are methods worthy of the Nixon playbook, in terms of sheer cynical zeo-sum brinksmanship. There is an endless contempt for Obama's brilliant oratory, his ability to speak to adults like adults, which makes the Clintons suddenly seem like Bushesque boors, frankly. The sneering at his ability to connect reeks of school yard pique. It need not have been this way. There were early signs of a different kind of race, and they evaporated a long time ago. One day, we may live to see such a race. I doubt it.
However, I utterly disagree with those who cynically are calling for her to go quietly into the good night. I think that would be deadly for the fragile unity of the party, a party that should be on the brink of reclaiming control of the White House, and all that goes with it. A huge percentage of Clinton believers would be turned off. I think any democrat alive knows what it is like to feel disenfranchised after the chaos of the last few elections.
And as any reader of the Huffington Post knows, she has fervent and patriotic supporters. (They will be writing angry letters even before they finish reading these words.) Supporters who still see more of what's good and great about her, who see her brilliance, her stamina, her staggering capacity for survival, as purely admirable, and even vital to whomever is going to be our next chief executive. I do not disagree with the need for a powerhouse in the Oval Office, I just think we need the purging energy of Barack Obama more. Senator Clinton has people who believe in her just as passionately as I believe in Senator Obama. Those supporters deserve to see their nominee fight for as long as she can, as long as she needs to. Well past the point of reasonable hope. That is America. It's in our sports, it's in our business, it's in our blood. And frankly, there is something admirable about the indefatigable Clinton appetite for power. I find it morally vacuous, not to mention shallow as hell when Bill remarks that if you can't take the hits, you shouldn't run. Really, Bill? Did you love your ongoing and disgusting hazing at the hands of right wing zealots so much that you think those tactics are a reasonable litmus test for the presidency, rather than say, oh, profound and inspirational moral force and an utterly unifying presence? Just asking. And as stomach turning as is the new college campus mini-trend of questioning of the Clinton's daughter about Ms. Lewinsky, well, so long as the Clintons are willing to put her out there to play that particular game of tennis, well then, who are we to stop 'em? Go. Go. Go. Go to town.
Maybe there's something purging about it for them. More than anything else, for purely selfish reasons, I do not, for one, think this race should end until William Jefferson Clinton is asked, and exhaustively and comprehensively answers each and every last question pertaining to the unconscionable pardoning of the crooked financier Marc Rich. Because, he too will be in the White House again, powerful, cynical, and hungry. Who knows what favors would be traded in exchange for God only knows what?
No, Hillary should remain in the race. As Frank Rich pointed out last Sunday, she knowingly fabricated the details of her landing in Bosnia, and she did so repeatedly, shamelessly, even after she was entirely revealed as a fabulator worthy of the hoariest backlot Hollywood schlockmeister. So - Let it go on and on and on and on. The truth, as it did in the case of her trip to the "war zone", will come out. It always does. the last aria has not been sung, and the Valkyrie has yet to exhaust her lungs. And as the race continues to the bitterest end, I hope that Senator Clinton's many supporters are entirely satisfied that she did this to herself. That she exhausted her every chance.
It could have been different. As I have said before, character is fate, and that is what we are witnessing, as her campaign falters. Let it go on until all hope is exhausted. Those of us who look at the Clintons and see the full dimensions of the failure of their promise to America will also feel some sense of loss when she withdraws. She shied away from greatness, so as to hold on to power. Character is fate"
- ********0
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Senator Hillary Clinton’s lead in the Pennsylvania Primary is shrinking.The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in Pennsylvania shows Clinton leading Barack Obama by just five percentage points, 47% to 42%. For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a ten-point lead a week ago, a thirteen-point lead in mid-March and a fifteen-point advantage in early March.
Support for Clinton slipped from 52% early in March, to 51% in mid-month, 49% a week ago, and 47% today. During that same time frame, support for Obama has increased from 37% to 42%.
