louts are louts - they aint gonna change.
Posted by the young Judith at June 10, 2008 06:38 PMAmen, Turkana
Posted by wilder at June 10, 2008 06:38 PMWell, it's not like she's getting nothing in return. First there is her $20 million debt that Obama can help her eliminate. Then there is the possibility of a Supreme Court nomination, which she has not said much about one way or the other. And finally, if she is to have any chance of being the nominee in 2012 (should Obama lose in '08), this is the way she has to play it.
So I don't see anything particularly surprising in her response to Obama's clinching the nomination, or out of character with her own long fight to win it. A half-hearted effort in support of Obama would serve no pragmatic purpose at all. And Hillary Clinton is about as pragmatic as they come.
Posted by Dexter at June 10, 2008 07:01 PMdexter,
as i keep saying, if we don't win this year, neither clinton nor obama will ever be president.
Posted by Turkana at June 10, 2008 07:13 PMSorry, I don't read this blog often enough to know why the Dems have no chance in 2012 should McCain win this year. Why is that?
Posted by Dexter at June 10, 2008 07:19 PMGive it up Turkana, the hubris of these people is truly astounding.
Posted by jb64 at June 10, 2008 07:35 PMi didn't say the dems would have no chance, i said neither clinton nor obama would, because their factions would blame each other, and the party would never again unify behind either of them.
Posted by Turkana at June 10, 2008 07:35 PMThere is no tactical advantage at this moment arguing about that. just say "yes dear, Hillary is truly a hero"
Everybody else is focusing at the now looming general election.
======
this is despite:
- Hillary made 3 announcements (I will not decide, email on Friday, speech on Saturday.) All other previous candidate had one speech.
- NY Times reports that Hillary originally want to stay 2 weeks before conceding
- Pelosi made it very clear "Over by June" And Reid, Pelosi, Dean made public appearance stipulating the need to end the primary on the last day of race. No floor fight.
- SuperDelegates were phoning Hillary asking "when exactly is the end"
- For a long while it was "Denver, Denver", despite history saying all "floor fight leads to losing nominee"
turkana - how come I always hear that if Obama didnt get the nomination all his young new innocent supoorters would be soooo upset they would never get involved in politics again?
I always thoguht that was dumb.
The real issue is that the money that would have normally gone gop went behind Obama instead this time and that is what the dems were afraid of losing. imo. So it isnt about who we would unite bhind in 2012, but who would fund it.
And that has little to do with who would actually be a better President.
young judith,
it's never about who would be the best president. it's always about who can raise the most money.
Posted by Turkana at June 10, 2008 07:59 PMjosh th,
"yes dear"?
Posted by Turkana at June 10, 2008 08:03 PMI am an Obama supporter - and yes I do feel ashamed of myself for some of the comments I made in the heat of the primary fight. I heard and read comments from both Obama and Clinton supporters which I believe were out of line. I think that I was so committed to my candidate, as were others on both sides, that I lost track of the good in the other candidate. And I'm not just posting it here. I wrote a diary about it on DKOS suggesting that unity isn't some one-way street. Obama supporters can't just urge Clinton supporters to change - we need to change and recognize the grace of Hillary Clinton in putting the country above ambition in her actions.
Posted by eehtee at June 10, 2008 08:04 PMWell, given what the math was, it is useful to ponder what she (or we) got for the $30 million he campaign is in debt. Who is expected to pay that off? Is that money that could be used to support candidates who actually have a chance to accomplish something? Or is the Clinton campaign just going to stiff its contributors?
The race was, basically, over after the Wisconsin primary. So what was that $30 million all about?
Should any of us (and especially Obama) feel any responsibility to help Clinton retire this debt?
Posted by kaleidescope at June 10, 2008 08:05 PM"i said neither clinton nor obama would, because their factions would blame each other, and the party would never again unify behind either of them."
That's not how nominations are won. You make it a fait-accompli. You raise enough money and get enough endorsements and media attention (she'll have plenty of both) and you knock most of the other contenders out of the race before even Iowa votes. Then you eliminate the remaining candidates and the party has to accept you.
I think if Obama just barely loses this year he has to be the front-runner for 2012. However, Michelle says she doesn't want him to run if he loses this year, and in that case I think Hillary would be the front-runner. Who could stop her? You would have to have the fantastic organization and fund-raising that Obama enjoyed, and that happens once in a generation.
If she campaigns hard for Obama this fall, she'll be fine (assuming he loses in November, and doesn't run in 2012).
eehtee,
well said, and i hope aapreciated.
Posted by Turkana at June 10, 2008 08:39 PMMore fratricidal slings at Obama supporters? That doesn't help much :-\
Maybe you should take some advice from her truly great concession speech.
Posted by chase1979 at June 10, 2008 09:17 PMchase,
i don't recall clinton mentioning the obamabot bloggers. as i wrote even before she conceded, i have no problem supporting obama. my disdain for the obamabots is well-deserved and has nothing to do with obama himself.
Posted by Turkana at June 10, 2008 09:36 PMI'm sorry Turkana but I won't take back any of those things i said about her and I still believe they are for the most part true. She gave a wonderful concession speach on Saturday and I applaud her for that but I can't bring myself to believe it was totally altruistic. If she didn't she was finished politically. She would have had no chance to retire her huge debt. She would have alienated the Democratic party and gone into her next Senate campaign short of cash and face a serious challenger in the primary. Sorry - it was still about Hillary.
Posted by Ron Beasley at June 10, 2008 09:57 PMTurkana - Brilliant as usual. What we're seeing is the recoiling in horror to those indoctrinated into the thuggush tactics used during this campaign. It's been like the latest reality show is Lord of the Flies with an all new, under 21 year old racially diverse cast. Adult supervision is still required, regardless of the fact that Obama has been nominated. His supporters may have ben eager and shameless, but he's going to have to keep them fed and off the front yard. Actually the better analogy might be that Huck Finn has pulled a Tom Sawyer on the youth of this country, while the liberal elites distracted the adults in this country by eliciting concern that there may be a deprogramming intervention might be needed. I would have voted for Obama anyway, based on his record in Illinois. Did we really need Donna Brazile threatening that There Will be Blood?
Posted by justslap at June 10, 2008 10:02 PMHillary is playing her party role, but I can see "2012" in her eyes. I imagine she'll fade to the background and not take an active role in Obama's campaign. Should he lose in November, she will be there to allow the party to have a "do-over" in 2012 and pick her.
Posted by Muck at June 10, 2008 10:37 PMUntil the day she conceded, major Clinton campaign staffers like Terry McCauliffe were stating that the popular vote figures justified taking the nomination to the convention floor despite the announced delegate count giving Obama an outright majority. Clinton supporters were shouting "DENVER! DENVER!" outside the Rules and Bylaws Committee meeting late May.
The delegate numbers meant that there was nothing short of divine intervention that could give (and I use the word give precisely) Senator Clinton a majority of the delegates at the end of the process, and this was clear to any rational observers weeks if not months ago.
That's what the Obama supporters were pointing out, time and time again through the spring while the Clinton supporters endlessly sliced and diced the primary campaign results, constructing castles in the sky ("well, if we discount the caucuses and add in her take in the Michigan fake primary and half the cancelled Florida votes and give Obama no votes in MI etc. etc.") in order to find some method, any method of putting their candidate first in a contest that had already been won by Obama for all practical purposes weeks before.
Posted by Robert Sneddon at June 11, 2008 02:39 AMTurkana,
I think we all need to unclench the sphincters a little. Your still bitter references to the "obamabot" bloggers has always, IMHO opinion, been "selective" as, to my perceptions, for every "obamabot" there has been an equal and equally obsessive "clintonbot" posting on this blog.
Every election cycle brings out the extremists. The time has come to forget past grudges and focus on the disaster that would be President McCain. There's too much that unites us to dwell on the primaries. It's OVER! Now let's move on.
Posted by DeminNewJ at June 11, 2008 03:32 AMme neither toooooo
Posted by emal at June 11, 2008 03:50 AMNot a bit ashamed, I tell it like it is. When Obama fucks up I will rip him too.
Posted by Joe at June 11, 2008 04:11 AMso joe...what are you waiting for...let start with the guy on his VP vetting committee...you know the guy with the countywide connections. let it rip
Posted by at June 11, 2008 05:45 AMdemoinnj
it aint bitterness - it is a valid assessemtn of a percentage of online Obama people and one I share. Did you suddenly think the GOP was solid just cause they won in '04?
Posted by the young Judith at June 11, 2008 06:55 AM
Yeah, Joe, and what about the guy Obama had a beer with. You know, the one who got caught shoplifting at Wal Mart?
Oh, and Joe, what about the canvasser for Obama who bought liquor with a fake ID?
Feeling like you idol has feet made of clay yet, Joe?
Posted by kaleidescope at June 11, 2008 07:12 AMGiven that it took a major intervention on the part of Reps. Frank and Rangel to get her to quit a day after she should have and that that this threat based intervention only got her to do what was the only course of action that furthered her long term interests, no. I think her speech was lovely and perfectly done but the fact that she didn't deliver it on Tuesday evening robbed it of redemptive quality for me. She really was in over her head as a presidential candidate, IMHO. Back to the Senate.
Posted by JohnShreffler at June 11, 2008 07:28 AMI didn't need to see Hillary make a gracious concession/endorsement speech on that Tuesday, but I did need to see her acknowledge that the race was, indeed, over without her supporters chanting "Denver! Denver!" and without her campaign manager introducing her as the next president of the United States. That said, she did finally make a lovely speech but given that she had to be wrangled into it by even her "friends" at that point I have a hard time wondering why it is that suddenly now my thinking of her ambitions a few weeks back are now flawed.
Posted by Bailey at June 11, 2008 07:35 AMI know I really shouldn't bother saying this, because actual facts only seem to obscure the issue for certain Obama supporters, but I remain exasperated by the counterfactual statements that "the announced delegate count" gave Obama an "outright majority". Announced by whom? And given the fact that Obama still does not have an "outright" majority, and cannot have one until the first ballot is taken on the floor of the Convention, all of the Obama supporter and Corporate Media Conventional Wisdom that Hillary had to concede on the spot on Tuesday is (a) completely unprecedented, and (b) insulting to her supporters.
The expressed preferences of superdelegates are in absolutely no way legally binding on superdelegates -- that's putting aside just how "firm" their expressions of preference were last Tuesday.
It's Obama supporters, not Clinton supporters, who remain in denial. Obama barely squeaked across the line, with the necessary but inherently shaky support of the superdelegates, as not even "divine intervention" would give him an outright majority of delegates legally pledged to vote for him on the first ballot. Under the circumstances, scheduling his coronation for last Tuesday without getting Hillary on board was counterproductive and utterly unnecessary. The Obama team is perfectly free to pursue a strategy of trying to win over Hillary's supporters by demonizing and vilifying Hillary -- but when that strategy proves ineffective, please don't complain to us. I would simply suggest that Obama supporters consider how effective that strategy would be if the circumstances were reversed.
I remember 1980 very, very well. I was not very pleased with Senator Kennedy's attitude, but it never would have occurred to me to "read him out of the Party" and even less would it have occurred to me to demonize him in front of his supporters, who were manifestly very loyal.
And Kennedy wasn't even close to Carter in either the primaries or the delegate count.
Posted by HenryFTP at June 11, 2008 07:52 AMTurkana;
Enough of Hillary was treated unfairly rhetoric. Let us take this blog back to what it used to be and that is anti-Republican. It is time to attack McOld for his policies and his false interpretation of Obama's policies. We all agree that Republican rule of last 8 years has been a disastor to our nation. Let us get on a mission to get these bastors out of our government.
Posted by suresh at June 11, 2008 08:48 AMIts time to retire the Obamabot insult. She had to be forced into conceeding the nomination, and it remains to be seen whether she will actually do what she says and rein in some of her more rabid supporters.
As you Clinton people used to say about Obama, "a pretty speech is not enough." Likewise.
Posted by ltgesq at June 11, 2008 10:02 AMObama himself boasted that he could get Clinton's voters but she couldn't get his. What more does Hillary have to do before he takes responsibility for his own campaign?
Methinks I see the seed of a mighty Excuse Tree should Barack fail to achieve his dream of becoming President.
The primary is over, we have a nominee.
When are you all going give it up, stop arguing about things that no longer matter and get to work on the general election?
If some blog post or comment still has you in a lather, that is a You Problem.
Posted by James E. Powell at June 11, 2008 10:55 AMwell james, right back atcha. If people are discussing things that you dont wish to read and that puts you in a tizzy, then maybe you should go have a nice cup of tea. Because you need to get used to it - the impact from this piece of crap process will be with us a looong time.
Posted by the young Judith at June 11, 2008 11:24 AMI happen to think the opinion expressed in the linked article is off-the-wall, and I happen to think Clinton's speech was a good one, a magnaminous one, and that she's going to work hard for Democrats to win this fall. Let's just not muddy the waters by claiming incorrectly that Sen. Clinton's speech was universally praised.
The other thing is, Turkana, kindly quit using other people's words, such as the quoted comments by Melissa McEwan, to continue your attack on Obama supporters. Have the intellectual honesty to use your own words when you write your attacks.
Posted by joel dan walls at June 11, 2008 12:42 PMOf course "universally praised" comes with an implied "by sane people whose opinion is valuable to Democrats".
Posted by rilkefan at June 11, 2008 01:26 PMJames E. Powell, and certainly not constructive. I agree, can't we move on now?
Posted by Judith#1 at June 11, 2008 03:02 PMSo many of your commenters are still addicted to hatred. It just won't go away, and that is very telling. The disgusting villification of Hillary never had anything to do with her policies, which are not that different from Obama's. It is, pure and simple, deranged hateful misogyny. And that's why it's still here.
Posted by Anon at June 11, 2008 03:13 PMit remains to be seen whether she will actually do what she says and rein in some of her more rabid supporters.
That's rich. You mean like Barack has reined in his more thuggish goose-stepping supporters?
Posted by Sharon at June 11, 2008 04:43 PMexactly Anon.
and that is the part that young women should be frightened of - not the clotheshanger boogie man, but the very real social contempt they may be in for when they age.
Posted by the young Judith at June 11, 2008 05:23 PMHardly seems worth it, does it Turkana?
Expecting graciousness or self-examination from the Obamabots (and the term is apt, btw) is futile. They did not want Hillary defeated, they wanted her humiliated--put in her place. Her resilience infuriates them.
Nothing you can say can change that, but I am glad you continue to speak up. ;-)
Posted by Dazir at June 11, 2008 10:47 PMIt does seem she's playing for position still. Vice President is still open. I doubt it will happen as they're are more qualified women out there incl. gov. of Iowa and Arizona. I believe Hillary's senate position was handed to her by party insiders due to her connection to Bill.
I'd like to see a woman politician make it to the Presidency without her husband leading the way.
Obama better pick wisely for VP. A woman would be a good choice.
Posted by datadave at June 24, 2008 04:55 AM