What Does Clinton Want?

OK...it's 2:51am PST and my whole family is awake...my wife and my two children.  We are recently back from China where we adopted our second child, a son, and we all have a mighty case of jet lag. At this point I fear we may never get back on any normal schedule.

While in China for the last two weeks I tried to follow the latest election news via the internets, hoping to find some signs that us Democrats would begin to come together in unity as the long and tortured primary wound down.  Unfortunately for all of us, I didn't find any, haven't seen any signs of it in the few days I have been home, and fear we may not see any meaningful unity until it's too late.    

I don't know, maybe it's the sleep depravation talking but here's what I see.  

From my perspective the race has been over since February when Obama essentially racked up the delegate lead he now has.  It was apparent then to the astute political observer that Clinton had no clear path to the nomination at that point.  The outcome of elections in Texas, Ohio, and later Pennsylvania, far from being important or impressive Clinton victories only cemented an Obama lead in pledged delegates (and popular votes) that will lead eventually to his nomination.  A few in the pundant class pointed this out with some regularity (Chuck Todd at MSNBC) but few then, as now even, were willing to declare the race over.

The route of the traditional runner-up in primaries is to withdraw when it becomes clear that they can't win.  As in the case of John Edwards, this normally happens rather early on in the contest.  Clinton, however, has chosen to stay in despite the clear lack of a way to surpass Obama in any meaningful metric.  I liked the way that Rachel Maddow (a favorite of mine) has called the Clinton political strategy "post rational."

( >>I would download the Maddow show podcast when in China and listen to her shows on my ipod as I rocked my new son to sleep.<< )

Clinton has only continued to amass an impressive number of delegates, votes, and victories by staying in the race well past the time when normal, rational presidential hopefuls withdraw. As Clinton has continued her quixotic quest for the party's nomination she has increasingly divided Democrats, made it difficult for Obama to gain traction with core Democratic constituencies, and weakened Obama in the general election fight.  

Clinton's good standing in recent polls and her impressive victories in WV and KTY only come, really, because no one is competing with her (again, a Chuck Todd analysis I am barrowing here).  Obama has taken to waging a more general election campaign and given Clinton a free ride not only by 1) not contesting primaries strongly in certain states but also by 2) treating her debatable comments and assertions with kid gloves.  In other words, Clinton's strength is, IMHO, something of a mirage.  

I guess the point of this diary, and my musings here at 3:49am now -- having stoped and started this diary a hundred times to deal with fussy and cranky family members -- is that Clinton has not returned the favor.  No, instead, she has taken an unfair advantage in all this and pressed her case even harder, knowing I am sure all along that she had only the slimmest of slim chances to prevail.  

I was shocked to see the videos of Clinton protestors at the RBC on May 31...the chants of "Denver" and the promises to vote for McCain.  Such things are disturbing to someone who wants to win badly in the fall.  And the level of vitriol directed towards Obama one finds in diaries and comments at places like MYDD is just staggering and not at all helpful.  Rational discourse and honest disagreements simply don't appear possible any longer and I see no signs of its abatement.  

But this disaffection is clearly (in my mind) the consequence of Clinton staying in a primary fight past the expiration date of her candidacy.  The result is that the continued campaign falsely raises the expectations of her supporters.  What's more, the arguments Clinton makes for staying in the race increasingly rely on an underdog-us-versus-the-world mentality, and rationalizing the certain defeat as an injustice and not the result of the normal political back-and-forth of any and every election battle.  Taking such positions makes finding party unity all the more difficult.    

The charges of sexism, raised by everyone in the Clinton campaign from Hillary on down, only reinforce such perceptions of deeply held grievance and lack of fairness in way the election has played out.  It's a political tactic sure to generate passionate support but it comes with a great cost: the wrenching difficulty of finding unity when the campaign is over.  Hillary supporters who feel she that she has not been fairly beaten by a superior political opponent and operation (or just beaten by the normal back and forth of any campaign) but instead beaten by a deeply prejudiced system that unfairly and unjustly manipulated the system in Obama's favor will make it exceedingly difficult for many of her supporters to come over to Obama.  

And yet, even as the final primaries loom and the Clinton campaign faces more and more certain defeat you find that she is not willing to abandon the fight.  It is post-rational madness.

I was struck by this blurb over at TPM about Hillary's approach to the final days of the primaries.  

>Even if catching Obama in the delegate count is out of reach, there's no reason (from her point of view) for her not to press on and pad out her delegate numbers as best she can, both to make the loss look closer and to increase her own leverage to whatever degree she can.<

What strikes me from the above comment is the section: "...there's no reason (from her point of view) for her not to press on and pad our her delegate numbers as best she can..."  I fail to see the logic in that sentiment.  For a really long time now there has been no rational reason for her to stay in the race.  She has long ago proven that she is a formidable candidate, that a woman can be president, that she would make a solid VP, that she is in a great position for 2012 if McCain wins.  All that was clearly evident after Indiana and North Carolina and staying in the race longer has done nothing to bolster these arguments and will do nothing to bolster these arguments.

The thing that I can't fathom is that Hillary is not just an incredibly bright person; she is an amazingly astute politician...and part of a pair with Bill Clinton, of especially keen political minds who understand the nature power and politics.  

It's clear she is ammassing political power and capital though for what possible end?  Since the nomination is and has been out of her reach for some time (and I continue to believe she must know this and has known this also for some time) then for what possible reasons has she stayed in it?  

Some of course will not accept my core premise:  that she has known she can't win it for some time.  I dismiss this out-of-hand and am uninterested in arguing with those about the possible scenarios for such an unlikely victory.  She's too smart not to have gotten it. So why stay in and sow the seeds of party disunity and dysfunction?  Why rile up her supporters with charges of sexism (by the media, by Obama)? Why press the case with Michigan and Florida in the most stark language of injustice and civil rights when everyone knew the outcome would not be in her favor?

To be sure some of her die-hard supporters will say she stays in "because she believes it!!!"  But I also reject this out-of-hand.  I think she is too smart and too crafty and has taken too many contradictory positions on such matters to be seen as a kind of modern day Joan of Arc.  I see her high-minded arguments as pure poltiical expediency...and I mean that in a good way.  I wouldn't mind the rhetoric and the contradictions if they came at a point in the race when one could expect a result that would deliver her the nomination.  But that ship sailed long ago.  

...And let's pause for a moment to note the irony here...that Obama, who has been consistently depicted as an empty suit, as politically naive and lacking the ability to play the hard-ball politics necessary to beat either the Republican or Clinton machines, has clearly outmaneuvered Hillary on almost every issue.

Having pressed her case beyond the point of reason and sown the seeds of party dysfunction and disunity the burden is now squarely on her to build unity and do what she can to deliver her supporters to Obama. Will she do it?  And if so, as everyone in the chattering class seems to believe, then why hasn't she done it already?  What is the point of fighting a clearly defined losing political battle all the way to the bitter, bitter end?  What is left to prove?  Finally, what does Clinton want?

OK...final note here...everyone in my family finally went back to bed.  It's now 5:24am though and I am up for good it seems wired on several cups of java but with a pounding headache.  Oy vey!  



Display:


Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 2)

Someone please explain it to me.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:52:18 AM EST

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 1)

Your repeat insults to Clinton, blaming her for the disaffection of her supporters is merely more of the same delusional and self serving BS that has terminated any hope of reconciliation. It is the actions and words of the Obama campaign and supporters which has destroyed any chance of reconciliation. We don't like or trust him or his supporters and the superior elitist attitudes, and there is no way we want anything to do with helping the corrupt voter fraud wing of the Chicago machine take over the Democratic party. It's a loathesome idea, we want no part of it.

Pretending that there is no substantial objection to Obama when we have a multitude of serious objections to him is simply the reigning delusion of his supporters. The constant blaming and sliming of Hillary Clinton only puts icing on the cake.


by 07rescue on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:08:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 1)

Just don't follow you here...I have certainly been critical of Clinton but not particularly insulting to her.  Where did I err.

Yes, I undertsand fully that Obama is not your choice...and for a host of good reasons than make sense to you.  I find absolutely no fault with anyone for making a different decision than I have.  My wife was big for Edwards until he droped out.  What I don't get is the high-level, intense vitriol directed against Obama.

I also have seen pleantly of Hillary hating and bashing by lots of people...and I am at a loss for that as well.  I think all the candidate bashing is dead-wrong.  

At the start of the primaries I thought we Dems had a range of excellent choices...now we have 2 excellent choices.  My point is only that I think it has been clear for some time that the election was, for all intense purposes, over a long time ago.  So, I don't get the rationale for staying in.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:15:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

 Your post is based on a flawed presmise. the race was not over for all intents and purposes a long time ago. It is now, IMHO, but at least up to NC and IA primary day, there was at chance, not entirely unreasonable that Clinton could at the very least substnatially close the gap. And taht's not counting two major states, Florida and Michigan, which werent' resolved until this pas  saturday (assuming they are in fact resolve).


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:47:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You say Obama outmanuvered Clinton BUT (none / 0)

It was really the MSM that crowned Obama a long time ago, as shown by the incredibly and bizarrely different standards to which they held the two candidates. One could say that the media has been holding out the red carpet treatment for Obama while pulling it out from Hillary at every opportunity. For that reason, the fact that Hillary has continued to rack up victories is particularly incredible. I think the same thing will happen today. They are saying Obama will win both primaries, and trying to say she has already dropped out of the race.. (she may, but I think its pretty obvious that that is NOT what the signs necessarily say..)

In any case, Obama's rising star set a long time ago but we are still being led to a shotgun wedding with him.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:01:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You say Obama outmanuvered Clinton BUT (none / 0)

I think it is pretty clear, from a procedural perspective, that Obama did outmanuver Clinton in the caucus states, in fundraising, on the handling of MI and FLA. and I guess that's what I meant there.

I do think that the MSM in general and some of progressive talk radio has been at times hostile to Hillary.  I do think that there has been a serious amount of sexism going on in the way HRC is covered by the MSM.  (I don't think the Obama campaign can be fairly charged with behaving in a sexist manner, though).

I also think that Obama has gotten his fair share of unfare treatment in the press.  And there isn't a politician around that thinks they get a fair shake from the media.  

I guess where we really dissagree is that I don't see any of that as determinative on the outcome of the election in part b/c Hillary also had major advantages with the press and the public at the start of the campaign that made it nearly impossible for any challenger to even think of overcoming her.  


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:12:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

The race played out as it was predicted to way back in February.   Clinton lost this race when she lost Wisconsin.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:03:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

In a "Post-rational" world (none / 0)

Being right or winning doesn't matter.  The only thing that matters is if you agree with them.


McCain = Iraq. John McCain = overturn Roe.
by PantsB on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: In a "Post-rational" world (none / 0)

I know.  But there are many people reading and not commenting who need to hear the rebuttal to their "post-rational" arguments.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:21:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

All that koolaid... (none / 0)

I don't think you'd understand or accept even if it's explained to you. Suffice to say...

Humpty democrats sat on the wall
Humpty democrats had a great fall
And all the scorned white women and most of the white men
Will not put Humpty democrats back together


It's an election, not an auction.
by cosbo on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:14:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

you can compare with mine
http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/6/1/23195 /85967
you can call me wrong too, it's ok: i expect nothing less from Obama supporters.
Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:54:52 AM EST

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

Hey...

I read your diary when it came out and thought it was interesting actually.  I just don't see her running as an independent...though it would certainly be interesting.  I hope she doesn't continue to run up to the convention.  I am fairly certain she will lose their anyway if she does decide to do it.  And then we will all lose in the fall.  It is clear that she thinks she is a better option vs. McCain than Obama (I would expect nothing else) but she is already positioned herself well for 2012 if Obama loses.  Continuing her fight now doesn't help her there IMHO.

Not exactly sure what I got wrong in my diary, from your perspective.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:07:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

you said:
"Not exactly sure what I got wrong in my diary, from your perspective."

2 wrongs:

  • there is no "WE" between Obama party and Hillary party after RBC decision;
  • her staying will not diminish Obama chances against McCain, because it will be landslide victory for McCain anyway.

regarding independent run: I think our country deserves more than 2 parties and Hillary has a good chance to start it - she has very large base and democratic party alienating her base by nominating Obama.


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:23:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

I don't see that the RBC decision was a flawed one but ok I gather that you do.

I assume, perhaps wrongly, that a McCain victory will be anathma to you and that this might generate a "we" or an "us" regardless of the hard feelings b/t Obama and Clinton.  My guess is that (and everyone says so) Clinton will come around to endorsing and supporting Obama strongly.  Will you follow her there if she does?

Finally, I agree that we could use more than 2 parties and that if someone was going to start one from scratch right this second, Hillary would be the best bet to do it and have success with it (as opposed to Greens, Libertarians, etc).  It would make things aweful interesting for the fall.  But I see Hillary as a stalwart big D Dem and the independent bid is just a river too far.  

Maybe I'm wrong about that.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

He/she's a troll n/t (none / 0)

You should probably ignore him/her.


John McCain wants you to be poor!
by nklein on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:57:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

i am not a follower, i am a supporter.
she is the best candidate, but if she choose to endorse wrong candidate, i am gone to McCain, as well as another 20% to 50% of her supporters.
Her best chance is not endorse anybody but keep running (no need for money now) and let Supers to figure out the problems with Obama.
Supers are stupid and slow, they may switch or may not - time will work for Hillary because GOP will swiftboat Obama big way.

I am not sure if Hillary and Bill have guts to start new 3rd party, but it seems to me that Dems pushing her far away and they hate Clintons because they are smarter than most Democrats.

You have to understand that it was concerted efforts by media to put Obama on top of Democratic ticket for very simple reason: it is the only chance for GOPs to win in November.
Hillary will crash GOPs in 2008, but Obama will lose. And Democrats did fall into Media trap - they always do that.


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:08:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

Besides being mad that Hillary didn't win, can you explain to me (on a policy level) why you would choose McCain over Obama? I'm having trouble understanding your line of reason.


by glopster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:18:53 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

i went to Obama's "meetings" and I saw:
it is the cult meeting and he is the Cult Builder and his supporters are cultists and blind believers in hopeshit.

And cult means end of democracy and NO tolerance toward people who has different opinion.
Best example is dkos and dkos-like posters here on mydd.
Cult of personality in White House is much worst than stupid policies McCain will pursue and bad judges he will put in Supreme Court.
I know history enough to know that cult is no-no red flag, totally unacceptable thing for me.


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:33:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

I guess you and I have a different idea about what policy means.


by glopster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:41:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: you diary are so wrong about Hillary (none / 0)

yes we agreed to disagree.


Welcome to a Landslide without white Working class, Latinos, Women, Seniors and holding-on sweeties
by engels on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:56:36 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 1)

She will take care of the AA politicans who supported her formost. Their seats are being threatend and she should protect them .  Nobody should be pushed out because they choose sides...

I hope she wants VP. She deserves it and if you look past all the talking points and emotional rants , they make an unbeatable couple. after wining they both will get the agenda done. imagine having hillary come visiting the congress to push Obama's agenda . She is tough and good on the dirty work and will make him look very sucessful.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:56:51 AM EST

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

What do we do with Bill.


by parahammer on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 08:57:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

>She will take care of the AA politicans who supported her formost. Their seats are being threatend and she should protect them .  Nobody should be pushed out because they choose sides...

You are saying that black pliticians who supported Hillary will be threatened by unruly mobs if they dont recant? I think you are underestimating the intelligence of the American people.


I hope she wants VP. She deserves it and if you look past all the talking points and emotional rants , they make an unbeatable couple. after wining they both will get the agenda done. imagine having hillary come visiting the congress to push Obama's agenda . She is tough and good on the dirty work and will make him look very sucessful.

I think that since she is ahead right now in the legitimate popular vote, she deserves the Presidency. If Obama pulls ahead, he does, but there are only two more contests today.

Regardless, they should rule together. Not one pushing the others agenda.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:05:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (1.00 / 0)

I'm not saying . jessi jackson jr is saying , obama camp has been cited in many articles written by pro obama huffington writers. The pro obama media figures have also written about it ( the pressure black politicans were threatend with.

currently on huffington the very same thing is wriitenn by an obama writer/supporter.  It is not about intelligence or lack thereof --- it's about facts on the ground.


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:21:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

My mom, who is an avid Obama supporter and a Hillary hater (I have never been a Hillary hater) even thinks she would be the best VP pick for Obama.

I am not 100% sold on that option yet.  I still think either Edwards or Richardson would be best (for either Hillary or Obama).


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:09:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

I really like Edwards. He seems so dedicated to me.


by Politicalslave on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:37:17 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

She won't make a good VP candidate.  She dilutes Obamas 'outside the beltway' appeal and she is a walking GOTV machine for the Republicans.  

Also, if you look at the maps on the front page, Obama is beating McCain on his own.  He doesn't need a divisive figure as his VP.  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:51:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

"Obama's outside the beltway appeal" (none / 0)

Bagdad Bob returns?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:09:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: "Obama's outside the beltway appeal" (none / 0)

Did Hillary lay Baghdad Bob off?  I heard she let her staff go.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:20:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (1.00 / 0)

Blue Neponset is a devout partisn and please ignore him . you have to forgive him. He serves his role here by popping into threads TR'ing people w/o comment 99% of times.

you have your nut bags in the clinton camp and we have ours in the obama camp...


Rise / Repeat / But for god's sake don't spin!
by aliveandkickin on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:24:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

Screw you pal.  

Stop making the same exact comments and I will stop making the same exact rebuttal.  

You are an asshole.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:40:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 2)

Frankly, I think your historical frame of reference is simply faulty.  No candidate has ever had the number of delegates that Clinton had in February and not taken their case to the convention.

I don't think she should do this and I don't think she will.  But its highly misleading to pretend like her continued candidacy has reflected some aberrational zeal to keep going in the face of dwindling odds.  Once candidates clear a certain number of delegates, they have always historically stayed in because you never what is going to happen.  You are dealing with true longshot possibilities, mostly dependent on some kind of bombshell dropping, but the stakes were high enough to make going all the way worth it to Humphrey in 72, Kennedy in 80, and Hart in 84.  Even Jerry Brown in 92 stayed in longer than Clinton has so far.  The other point, which you acknowledge, is that people do this not just because there remain slim chances of winning but in order to gain bargaining chips.  

I think Clinton will suspend her campaign and then in the next couple weeks there will be a lot of closed door bargaining between the campaigns and maybe with other people in the democratic leadership.  I honestly don't know exactly what she wants, but I do know that her actions are entirely within historical precedent.  The more Obama supporters act like some kind of injustice is being committed because she is following a well-trodden path, the more it will piss off Clinton supporters.


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:11:15 AM EST

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 1)

Well, I don't quite see it that way, clearly.  But the examples of pols taking it to the convention are, IMHO, clearly examples of politicial suicide for the party...and I think that's the concern on the part of many Obama supporters.  The "well trodden path" is one that leads to defeat in the fall.  So, let's not walk down that path...that's all I am saying.

Clinton has every right to do this, of course.  I don't quite see where I talk or write as if I think it's an "injustice" to Obama that Clinton is doing what she is doing.  But I am an Obama supporter and maybe tone-deaf on that score???  I just don't see the rationale behind her actions.  It seems as if you don't either.  Yes, she is bargaining for something, but what...?  Hasn't she amassed all the bargaining chips she needs already?


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:25:07 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 1)

I don't think its likely at all that Clinton will take her case to the convention, barring some kind of event that completely damages Obama.  She knows that this is not a good choice, either for the party or for her career.

I just take issue with you calling her an abnormal, irrational candidate for continuing to pursue the nomination in a very standard way up to this point. The extended nomination battle overall has probably been good for the party.  She had a legitimate, if small, chance of winning and, having invested huge amounts of time, money, and emotional energy in this race, wanted to pursue that chance.  Nobody has ever quit in that position.  I think any candidate would have done the exact same thing.  So its grating to hear Obama supporters complain about her still being in the race.  

The natural point for her to suspend the campaign and start bargaining is upon us today.  As long as they can hammer out a deal of some sort, which will require compromises on all sides, I see no problem with the way that the race has unfolded.  I don't know exactly what she wants.  My pet theory is that she wants input into the VP decision - not to be VP herself, but to block somebody from being VP who would be a very strong contender for the nomination in 2016 if Obama wins two terms (like Mark Warner).  If Obama instead picks a VP like Ted Strickland, Bob Graham, or Sam Nunn who won't be able to run for president eventually, then Hillary stands a good chance of being the big favorite for the nomination then (she'll only be 69).


John McCain: Extending SCHIP would be an "unfunded liability."
by Fuzzy Dunlop on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:45:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

I can see it the way you describe...and am sorry to offend.  From my perspective it is unusual to stay in and fight so hard when you know you are going to lose.  Of course this line of reasoning is predicated on the my assumption that she knows she is going to lose...perhaps a faulty one.  I wonder what this race would have been like if Edwards had decided to stay in it until the end.  I have a vague memory of his campaign manager saying he thought he gave Edwards bad advice to drop out...

I can and do buy the argument that the prolonged primary fight has actually been good for the party and for Obama...but only up to a point.  And I had hoped that Hillary would take a less...searching for the right word...strident tone in her campaigning after NC/IND for sure.  

Along with Edwards or Richardson I also thought that Ed Rendell would make a good VP and help smooth things over with Hillary.  


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:56:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

There's no comparison between Edwards and Hillary. Edwards didnt' win a single primary this time out and also, lost a race for the nomination last time without winning very many primaries either AND was a  member of a losing presidential ticket in 04. It was pretty obvious he wasn't going anywhere after he bombed in Nevada and SC.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:02:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The more it will also hurt our chances of (none / 0)

winning.. because the fact is, the only way we can win is with both of them on the ballot.


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:10:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (2.00 / 1)

Sorry the election isn't over until the last primary. Which is today. The constant crap about how she should drop out before the end is just that- crap. How embarrassing for you if she had dropped out and won Kentucky and WV by the huge margins she did. In fact in ain't really over till August and I know you think everyone should bow down to the great one but Obama is as the NYT says barely limping across the finish line. Were he the excellent candidate Obamabots want to believe he would be sailing. The bottom line is she truly believes that dems will lose in November without her as the candidate and her supporters believe that too.

Compare the numbers:

37 Primaries = 34,553,605 voters -Clinton + 502,941 but only gave  Clinton + 67 delegates
13 Caucuses + TX = 1,057,137 voters -Obama + 299,768 but gave Obama + 205 dekegates

37 Primaries with 34.5 million voters have
Clinton leading in both votes and delegates.

Caucuses with 1.1 million voters gave Obama
~300,000 more votes and 205 more delegates.

While you can argue that Obama was smart to get those votes that way but unfortunately he ain't got that choice  in the general. And he can't push people off the ballot by disallowing their signatures either. And it is unlikely that McCain's wife will sabatoge his campaign like happened for Obama in the senate campaign in Illinois. The Chicago machine is running out of options. What will they do this time? Shoot McCain?


by Bornagaindem on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:29:31 AM EST

Can anyone go to caucuses, if they can afford (none / 0)

the plane fare, hotel cost, etc?

I mean any registered Democrat in good standing.

How long do you need to have been a Democrat? (how many months/years) to get one of those extra-strong votes?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:18:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

she wants to be president (none / 0)

and it is still a very real possibility which is why you all keep posting these diaries.  She has more support and if the super delegates grow a spine they will support her and stop fearing the media reaction.


by Teacher1956 on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:31:27 AM EST

Re: she wants to be president (none / 0)

 I know you must be disapointed. But Senator Obama will make a great President with the help of Senator Clinton.


by Politicalslave on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:36:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: she wants to be president (none / 0)

I guess where you and I are at a great difference is in the phrase you use, "very real possibility."  I just don't see that.  I am not writing this out of anger or fear or intimidation...I am puzzled and trying to be honest about it.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:38:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

Wonderful Diary I'm glad you have Jet lag and wish your newest family member my best. What a time to enter the U.S. Cheers


by Politicalslave on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:33:29 AM EST

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

thanks...the first nice comment here about that...I had almost forgot reading and responding to the various comments.

It does give one perspective about what is really important.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:39:19 AM EST

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

She wants Obama to lose in November so she can become President in 2012.  As you say in your diary, she is too smart not to realize that her chances of winning the nomination in 2008 are close to zero.  Knowing this, the only conclusion I can draw is that she is setting Obama up for a fall in the fall so she can take the WH in 2012.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:46:18 AM EST

What's rational? (none / 0)

Plenty of candidates have stayed in races way pay the rational time,whenver that may be. If you mean "realistic changes of success", then Bill Bradley and Ted Kennedy weren't even rational when they filed to run in the first primaries. Jerry Brown stayed in until June, even though he was far less successful than HRC has been and it was quite clear that Clinton was the presumtive nominee.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:52:57 AM EST

Re: What's rational? (none / 0)

Yes, as you say, pleanty of pols have stayed in past the time they should have exited.  But it's not just staying in...it's how you continue to campaign when you are in past your experation date.  

As for starting a presidential run in the first place, well, I think no one can fault a person for throwing their hat into the ring and seeing what happens...so I am not sure I follow you there...or perhaps we agree about that one.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:01:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's rational? (none / 0)

Well, if you point is you should end it when its obvious you can't win, it ought to have been obvious to Bill Bradley and Ted Kennedy taht they couldn't win from the get go. And even granting them the right to run, which I do, after losing a couple of primaries, they should have seen that it was quixotic, far more so than Clinton's campaign.


by Mayor McCheese on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:03:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What's rational? (none / 0)

Well, I think you never can fault someone for giving it a shot.  The start of a primary is always full of contenders.  I don't know many people who would have even given Bill Clinton half a chance from the get-go.  

Hillary has been a powerfully successful candidate and campaigner.  No doubt about it.  I think she would make a good president.  No doubt about that in my mind either (I also think Edwards, Dodd, Richardson, etc all would have made good candidates).

I do think there is a time when one should drop out in favor of party unity and I feel like Clinton missed her opportunity to do that.  IMHO that has generated some serious hostility b/t Obama and Clinton supporters.


by Our Past on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:22:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The nerve of you guys (2.00 / 1)

Blaming her for running until the end.

Why don't you blame your guru for being too weak? I mean, have you ever seen a presumptive nominee that weak?

You can blame Clinton for that too if you want, but saying it doesn't make it true.


by TaiChiMaster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 09:55:20 AM EST

Re: The nerve of you guys (none / 0)

I mean, have you ever seen a presumptive nominee that weak?

Hillary Clinton.  She had a 100 delegate lead before the first vote was cast.  She had a ton of money before a single vote was cast.  She had the most name recognition of any of the candidates.  Yet she lost.  That is an epic failure.  Obama came out of no where to win this thing.  He ran a great campaign and calling him weak is nothing more than a school yard taunt.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:06:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nerve of you guys (none / 0)


And he is a very strong GE candidate... with no skeleton... and he doesn't rely on the black vote that will be diluted in november.

oh wait...


by TaiChiMaster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:08:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nerve of you guys (none / 0)

Look at Jerome's map on the front page.  Five months out Obama seems to be doing OK.  He has made mistakes and it seems like he has learned from them.  I can't tell you what will happen in the next five months but I like our chances in November.  

If you really do have concerns about Obama then please make them known.  What skeletons?  Why will the black vote dilute in November?  


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:17:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nerve of you guys (none / 0)


What skeleton?

It must feel good to be that naive and I kind of hesitate to tell you the truth.

All the baggage that we learned about Obama so far were for everyone to see: the bitter comment, Michelle Patriotism, Rev Wright. I call them self-inflicted wounds.

I you don't believe that the GOP has been digging like crazy those last few months and found "interesting" stuff, then you really live in lala land.


by TaiChiMaster on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:29:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The nerve of you guys (none / 0)

If we already know about these things then they are not skeletons.  The press has been sated about bittergate and Rev. Wright.  The only people who care about Michelle's "Patriotism" are Republican scumbags and their minds are already made up.  

I you don't believe that the GOP has been digging like crazy those last few months and found "interesting" stuff, then you really live in lala land.

Of course the Repubs have been digging like crazy.  Do you think they have nothing on Clinton?  

I challenged you to voice your concerns about Obama and you either chose not to or you can't.  Your idea that Obama is weak is thin gruel.  He just beat the Clinton political machine.  That is far from weak.  As I said before if you really do have specific concerns about Obama then please let us all know.  If you are just trying to drum up uncertainty about his nomination then get it all out soon because it won't be tolerated once Clinton finally gets out of this race.


Consider that everything which happens, happens justly, and if thou observest carefully, thou wilt find it to be so. -Marcus Aurelius
by Blue Neponset on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:38:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm of two minds (none / 0)

The first thought I have had is that she has not had a good opportunity to drop out and save face.  After losing in 11 states and the Americans Abroad in February, she set the goalpost at Ohio/Texas, figuring that, by having Bill say that she had to win both, she was giving herself an out.

Then, when she actually DID win both (in terms of media narrative: not only did she win by less than the number of Republicans that admitted to voting for her, but she actually lost the Texas delegate math which is the real determinant of victory in a primary), she'd painted herself into a corner and had to carry it through to the next big state, Pennsylvania.  Her demographics were strong there, and she knew that a big victory would help with her fundraising to get out of debt (though of course she spent through most of her money raising, so perhaps that didn't work so well).  She couldn't drop out after a big victory, however... at least not in her mind.

She very nearly conceded in Indiana/North Carolina, and would have if Operation Chaos hadn't given her the win in Indiana.  Again, she may think it a betrayal of her loyal supporters if she quits after a win.  She doesn't want to be seen as being driven out of the race when she's still viable on a narrative level (nevermind the actual math).

Now the speculation is that she's going to go out with a big, gracious blessing on Obama and party like it's 1992 in a friendly and safe home environment.

The second, darker, thought that I have had is that she actually thought that she could bully the superdelegates into symbollically sending the black candidate to the back of the bus in her own twisted quest for ambition.  She's driven a wedge between her followers and the Democratic party and presumptive nominee in order to blackmail the party elders into giving in to her demands (whether they be becoming the nominee or securing the VP position) with some sort of disconnect over the current state of the country's mood... that we're tired of being held hostage to our fears, and have embraced Bill Clinton's 2004 rhetoric of voting with our hopes rather than our fears.

I honestly believe that my first thought is the truth, or at least an approximation of it, and that we can get on with the healing after today.  If Clinton doesn't drop out by the end of the week, however (after Obama gets all the delegates he needs to secure the nomination), then we'll know that she's got some other game going on.  


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.
by Dracomicron on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:10:00 AM EST

You're completely right of course (none / 0)

but this isn't a place where many people who voted for Hillary in the primaries are going to think through what you've said.  Saying Hillary lost the nomination to many folks around here is the same thing as insulting her personally and then, incredibly, insulting them as well.  

As for your question, it baffles the hell out of me too.  I don't want to believe it was done out of spite.  But it was obvious to an astute observer that she was pretty much done after Wisconsin.  That was a long time ago.  

Her campaign set the right goal at the time.  They pointed to the huge delegates available in TX and OH.  Huge blowouts in both of those states could have pulled her back within reach.  It was as her numbers in those states faded that they really began to leave rational arguments behind.  And when the press allowed them to change the goal from blowout victories to just winning by any margin, we were doomed to be stuck in the weeds for a long  time.  

Even by succeeding beyond reasonable expectations in all the remaining primaries, it was clear she couldn't overtake the lead.  That's not partisan anything.  That's just a rational observation.  But you can see what happened.  Rachel Maddow put it perfectly.  

In terms of why Hillary chose to do it, I think she just wanted it that bad.  Even if she saw a one in a thousand chance, to her, it was worth any cost to the party to take that shot.  I think even a lot of her supporters saw it that way.  The problem is that they have now grown very accustomed to trying to tear down Obama and shrugging off the needs of the party.

After arguing their 'concerns' about Obama losing to McCain for so long, it seems that many of them have come to actually hope for it.


by Sun Dog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:15:41 AM EST

Clinton is the one with the experience.. and who (none / 0)

is obviously better on the issues, and you say Obama's (what?) meets 'the needs of the Party')

is that because the Party bigwigs dont want a new, sucessful entitlement? It is, isn't it.

They would rather see millions of Americans lose their homes, and hundreds of thousands of Americans die of preventable - if they had healthcare - illness (26,000 a year) than THAT, right?


Universal healthcare IS a core Democratic value
Without a REAL committment to it, we WON'T win in November.
by architek on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:23:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Clinton is better on the issues? (none / 0)

because her supporters keep saying that over and over?

It's not obvious at all that is true.  

I would just point out that the Iraq war is a big issue.  The biggest for a lot of Democrats and Hillary has been wrong a lot on that one.  Whether you think she was wrong on Iraq or not, you have to recognize that millions of Democratic voters feel she is wrong.  It's not 'bigwigs' conspiring in a room somewhere.  She lost out among the voters.  She came close.  She got a lot of support for a second place finish.  But she was in second place.  And the way she voted and behaved in the leadup to the Iraq war has a lot to do with it.

Just repeating that 'obviously' she's better on the issue while ignoring some issues that matter a lot to many Democrats doesn't really clear anything up.


by Sun Dog on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:37:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

Congratulations on the arrival of your son!!

Try to get lots of early morning light....it will help reset your 'clock'.

As to what Clinton wants?
I don't know....but, I think that whatever it is should be given serious consideration by Obama.
We will soon know the answer one way or the other.


by Kysen on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 10:33:12 AM EST

Re: What Does Clinton Want? (none / 0)

I imagine Senator Clinton probably wants a little respect - that would be a good start.

I've read your comments, and I certain that you didn't intend for your diary to be as dismissive as it reads, but it is.  You don't even consider that there are millions of us who think Hillary Clinton is the best person for the job.  Instead, you treat her as some sort of self indulgent hack who's merely in Obama's way and doesn't have enough sense to move. Moreover, she's irrational - after all, any sane, rational person would have left the race months ago.  How dare she continue to get votes!

Any victory she's had you marginalize with the sophistry that Obama allowed her to win - not because she earned it.  That could never be the case, could it? Let's look at some of your remarks:

 The outcome of elections in Texas, Ohio, and later Pennsylvania, far from being important or impressive Clinton victories only cemented an Obama lead in pledged delegates (and popular votes) that will lead eventually to his nomination...

As Clinton has continued her quixotic quest for the party's nomination she has increasingly divided Democrats, made it difficult for Obama to gain traction with core Democratic constituencies, and weakened Obama in the general election fight...  

Clinton's good standing in recent polls and her impressive victories in WV and KTY only come, really, because no one is competing with her (again, a Chuck Todd analysis I am barrowing here).  

And you preface these comments with a questions as to why we aren't seeing more unity?

It's incredible to me that you don't see that refusing to concede even the smallest grain of respect to Senator Clinton and her supporters is exactly what will derail the unity train. Her victories in Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania - they weren't impressive at all, they're irrelevant.  And she only won in Kentucky and West Virginia because Obama allowed it.

There are plenty of folks around here who have their eyes on the prize, but I'm not at all convinced you're one of them.  You don't bring about unity by telling the other side how little they matter and how wrong they are. There have been at least a dozen excellent diaries here in the past week bringing together Clinton and Obama supporters, and it's done not by demonizing Hillary Clinton, but by staying focused on the goal. That gets you exactly nowhere.

Check my signature.  I'm a Democrat first and foremost and so is Hillary Clinton. Despite your belittling, dismissive tone, she's a formidable presence in this party, and both Obama and Clinton have energized the party like never before. This isn't some blowout victory for Obama - it was very close, and Obama knows that, even if you don't. Both Clinton and Obama are loyal Democrats who deserve our respect for creating a primary cycle where more people have become involved than ever before. That's called party building, not self indulgence.


Buddhist Clintonistas for Obama.
by Denny Crane on Tue Jun 03, 2008 at 11:39:09 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.