Clinton Supporters, what's up with "the party"?

One of the most common arguments among Clinton supporters is that Hillary has been let down/betrayed/attacked by "the party" because superdelegates are moving toward Obama, and will ultimately hand him the nomination. This, in turn, makes some feel as if they can no longer be part of the party, and we all know what that means.

That's not what this diary is about. This is a legitimate inquiry into how the Party could've treated her better. I thought they were already massively behind her when she began the primaries with a top heavy schedule seemingly favorable to her, a 100 superdelegate lead before anyone voted, and the backing of regional machine controllers like Rendell.

Apparently, that wasn't enough. So, I genuinely ask - no snark or meanness intended - what else could've been done for Hillary? Go back and really think this through before you answer. Think about from Iowa onwards. And let's keep it civil. Thanks.



Display:


MSM (none / 0)

I see a lot more anger directed at "the media" for its portrayal of Clinton.  There is some beef to be had there for sure.  But that was always going to be Clinton's achilles heel in this race.  "The media" has never been particularly kind to Hillary.  The ironic thing is that now the AM loudmouths are actually in Hillary's corner as a way of whipping up anger at Barack Obama.


by the mollusk on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:39:24 PM EST

Good question... (2.00 / 1)

I look forward to the discussion here.

Recommended.

As an Obama supporter, I wish that folks on both sides had taken stronger stands against sexist and racist stereotypes and fear-mongering.

I'm not sure if either candidate ever stood up against the Hillary nutcrackers or the Obama-monkey t-shirts. But then again, I suppose that would only validate them and give them oxygen....

Just a thought:

When the racist vigilante group the "minute men" came to my very conservative city the heads of many of the progressive groups got together to discuss our response. Many initially wanted to get them banned. Eventually most everyone concluded it was better to let them go on and show everyone what ignorant racists they were. A big protest would just given them attention. A separate positive rally would not.

Well, they got in the paper saying that all Mexicans are taught in school to hate Americans and they're are brainwashed into a secret government plot to vote California and other states into a new Mexican Union and a bunch of other ridiculous garbage.

Then our side stood up reasonably, acknowledged that immigration is a very complex issue and said that we need to at least be compassionate to our fellow humans who've come here to make a better life for their children.

Game and match.

But that's not to say you remain silent on racism and sexism....


by luckymortal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:48:30 PM EST

Re: Clinton Supporters, what's up (2.00 / 1)

The party was behind Clinton. Look how many Supers endorsed her before the primary season even began.  The nomination was hers!  Then those pesky voters came in and ruined everything!!!!


by rf7777 on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST

Clinton Supporters (2.00 / 4)

The "party" is not just grass-roots activists. The "party" is not just the DLC, and other party affiliated entities.  The "party" is not just a collection of elected officials.   The party is all of us.  And furthermore, those who want to bestow the nomination of a candidate before they are NOMINATED are often trying to label Hillary and her supporters as obstructionists to the "Democratic Party" and its cause.

The pundit-ocracy keeps separating us, as do the various factions and natural divisions.  I have read so many comments coming from "democrats" that claim that Hillary is a republican-lite.  I have listened while the working class factions of the "democrats" have forever been linked as "less-educated".

There is a way of trying to explain away someone supporting Hillary as a "non-Obama supporter".  It  is as is we are just plain wrong in our beliefs, and that we are no longer legitimate democrats.


by Al Depansu on Wed May 21, 2008 at 01:53:17 PM EST

what's up with "the party"? (2.00 / 4)

As a Hillary supporter, I'm not sure who exactly you are referring to as "the party", but I haven't ever leveled such a vague criticism.  I think the media has been pretty out of control, and certain places on the internet, in their visciousness.

But mostly I think Obama convinced a lot of people of something that he didn't convince me of.  His "win" (as it appears it will be) is the very least dramatic, barely-over-the-wire victory I have seen in my adult lifetime... which is longer than most bloggers, I suspect.  So it isn't just me that didn't buy in.

None of that has anything to do with "the party" unless you mean the just-over-half of Democratic voters who have supported him in this primary races.


by Susan in Oregon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:02:16 PM EST

Re: what's up with "the party"? (none / 0)

You don't think it notable that a one-term senator has defeated the most powerful Democratic dynasty in decades while they enjoyed every imaginable advantage at the beginning of this race?

Winning by any margin in those circumstances is quite a feat, no?


by Reeves on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:22:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: what's up with "the party"? (none / 0)

Perhaps it's quite a feat, but nonetheless marginal in terms of his actual numbers.  It's fine, and it's something his supporters can feel proud of.  Still, it's a barely-won-it nomination.


by Susan in Oregon on Wed May 21, 2008 at 03:38:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I Don't think (2.00 / 1)

"The party" was ever massively behind her. Look at all the party elders/bigwigs that never got behind her. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, Jimmy Carter, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Robert Byrd et al have either backed OBama or remained neutral.


by Mayor McCheese on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:03:05 PM EST

let's see.... (2.00 / 4)

a few examples:

pelosi: Unity Ticket "Not A Good Idea"

kennedy:  saying she shouldn't be vice president because the job requires "real leadership."

leahy: the first leading democrat to openly call on HRC to abandon her bid

obama: "My attitude is Senator Clinton can run as long as she wants," (prior to PA!)

there's more - but you get the point...


"Me Fail English? That's Unpossible." Ralph Wiggum
by canadian gal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:09:54 PM EST

Re: let's see.... (none / 0)

These are just politicians stating their preferences. Lots of them supported her too. Unless I'm missing something in these statements that you see.


by luckymortal on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:49:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The DNC did what they always do. (none / 0)

If this election hasn't exposed them nothing will.


by JimR on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:14:06 PM EST

Examples? (none / 0)

I see comments about various party notables that supported Obama or stayed neutral.

Can someone give me an example of one of them having any impact whatsoever on the voting that took place?


by Reeves on Wed May 21, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST

How many elite dem MALE party losers..... (none / 0)

can screw one woman?

Answer: 8 1/2

kerry, kennedy, edwards, richardson, dodd, bradley, dashle, mcgovern....

Carter....(counts as 1/2 since he did actually make 1 term of President).......

How many dem MALE party leaders have actually WON?

Answer:  1

Bill Clinton.


by nikkid on Wed May 21, 2008 at 06:42:36 PM 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.