Recently in Hillary Clinton Category

Now that Hillary Clinton has “suspended” her campaign for the Democratic nomination for president, millions of angry, white women are turning their disappointment-led ire toward Barack Obama and assuming that it is his responsibility to heal the party:

Obama is the victor, now let's see what he does. The burden is on him as it should be.

Now let's see if Obama can deliver. He has much to do and undo. Yes, his unfortunate comments "Hillary, you are likeable enough" spoke volumes. He was some work to do.

First, let’s get one thing straight: Barack Obama did nothing to Hillary Clinton or her supporters that he should or could undo.

• One Democratic candidate said that the Republican presidential candidate was obviously qualified to be president and suggested that the other Democratic candidate was not.


• One Democratic candidate repeatedly claimed that the other Democratic candidate might not be able to beat the Republican.


• One Democratic candidate derided the other Democratic candidate’s capabilities (and, by extension, that candidate’s supporters) as nothing more than empty rhetoric.


• One Democratic candidate’s campaign was dismissive of the other Democratic candidate’s numerous state primary/caucus wins.


• One Democratic candidate’s campaign implied that racial bias was behind their successes and failures.


• One Democratic candidate tried to change the party’s rules mid-race to boost their campaign.


• The other Democratic candidate said that candidate one was, “likable enough”.

In fact, Obama only brought up his opponent in response to the most unfair and divisive rhetoric (see above), rhetoric that is dangerous to the party and the country come November.

This TPM reader and Hillary supporter at least gets it half right:

She did so much "just right" and could have won it had she not had the rough treatment from the media.

This person at least understands who was unfair to Hillary. But it is a wild stretch of the imagination to say that she “could have won it” if not for the misogyny and Clinton-animus displayed by a number of prominent media gasbags. In fact, backlash against this unfair treatment may have been a driving force behind Clinton supporters and is widely credited for her late, come-from-behind victory in the New Hampshire primary. Her campaign might have been over many months ago had she not won that contest.

Finally, this Clinton supporter lobs one additional insult at Obama supporters:

If there are those Democrats who still feel it is necessary to denigrate Senator Clinton and her run for the Presidency, I would ask them to think about the change they advocate and the no more politics as usual. The only way to say no to the Washington politics of the past 20 years is to stop hating and start moving forward.

Every man that has lived with a woman knows about resentment built on perceived slights. And it isn’t surprising that this Clinton supporter should project her resentment on Obama supporters. But the truth of the matter is that most Obama supporters seem heartsick (perhaps I’m projecting somewhat here), not hateful, about what the Clinton campaign did to the Clintons and yearn for the party to unite against our common enemies.

And, incredibly, this last Clinton supporter seems to think that saying “no to the Washington politics of the past 20 years” requires Democrats to “stop hating” when it should be obvious, particularly to a Clinton supporter, that the politics of the past 20 years has been all about Republican hatred of liberals and Democrats and the abject failure of the corporate media. It will take everything liberal Democrats can do to overcome this deep ignorance and mass media turpitude and teach even many Democrats who our real enemies are.

[Cross-posted at Dispassionate Liberal]

Lots of "look-backs" today at the failed candidacy of Hillary Clinton. I don't want to dwell on the past so I'll just say a few things and move on...

IMHO, the biggest reason Hillary lost (bigger than her vote on the AUMF) was that she forgot that campaigns are about the future, not the past. Obama knew that; it's what "Change" means. The irony, of course, is that Hillary should have known better, too. Bill always did. When he ran on "Change" in 92 his campaign song -- "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" -- was a careful reflection of that.

But Hillary? She might as well have sung from the Prince songbook -- "Party like it's 1999." Bad idea, no matter how good the go-go 90's looked, especially compared to the Bush/Cheney regime.

Of course, she was hobbled by other things as well -- a disastrous campaign plan (no Plan B after Super Tuesday) and her stubborn insistence that the presumptive Republican nominee was a better choice for President than her Democratic opponent. That's the kind of talk that, if she were a Republican, would have gotten her serious consideration for the position of Vice President on McCain's ticket. Instead, it just poisoned the well -- for her and perhaps even Obama and the entire Democratic party. She made a lot of enemies with that one. A lot of enemies.

That said, I'm sure that she'll be accepted back into the loving embrace of the Democratic party before too long. I look forward to her campaigning for Obama in the fall. She is just the kind of fighter the Democrats need to slash away at McCain the Republicans. And it's what Obama needs to maintain his dignity and role as the good cop in the campaign.

And who knows -- maybe there's a reward for her, after she has proven her loyalty. I just hope she doesn't settle for a cabinet position because (unless you're AG, SecState or SecDef) that's usually a career ender. Associate Justice of the SCOTUS has always been my fondest wish for her.

Good luck Hillary and remember: second-best in this field ain't too shabby.

I've been out of town for the last several days visiting family. I've followed the DNC meetings somewhat and the Puerto Rican primary even less. I've been reading a few online blogs. And it seems to me that the sweet milk of Democratic optimism has curdled somewhat.

Here's my take on it:

Obama's doing the right thing by moving on to begin his general election campaign. Perception is reality and the superdelegates know by now who does -- and doesn't -- have the money, the direction, the agenda, the skill and the drive to get elected in November.

That said, I don't see anything to be gained by continuing to fight with Hillary Clinton for the nomination. That goes for Obama's supporters (and any other wise Democrats) who might want to destroy her campaign and sow her village's farmland with salt. Enough already. Cartago Delenda Est does not a campaign slogan make. Besides, a scorched-earth strategy doesn't suit Obama's style -- or his campaign's larger themes. Nor does it suit the Democratic party. A good portion of the country will never vote Democratic and if you add in half the Democrats themselves scorning the party, well, that's not good, is it?

So it behooves Obama to be more than magnanimous. The tough question is how to minimize the damage Hillary can do to his campaign when it moves on to the next phase. How to coax Hillary off the ledge? How to defuse the hostage crisis that lies at the heart of Hillaryland?

Now some of you might feel that Hillary really wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012. I've felt that myself for quite some time. But after some further reflection, here's what I found: if there is anything that Bill Clinton wants in life, it is to be loved and accepted. And becoming the next Ralph Nader will not do it for him. If Hillary fights Obama all the way to November, the Clintons can kiss their reputations goodbye -- now and in 2012.

So what does Obama do?

Characteristically, Obama has shown some leadership on this. He's been (and continues to be) respectful of her. And lord knows he has plenty of incentive to help her get whatever it is she wants (shy of the nomination). In so doing he'll get what he wants: the nomination and the victory in November.

So I still think offering her the VP slot is the smart move for both of them. I don't think many Obama supporters will jump ship (even if she shocks the world and accepts the slot). Furthermore, it allows Obama to show her the requisite respect that a large number of Democrats think she deserves. And (most importantly) from a tactical standpoint it calls her bluff. Because in the end, I think Bill will turn it down. Why? Because it will come with too many strings attached, e.g., full financial disclosure of the Clinton Library donors' list, a radical reshaping of Bill's extremely lucrative speaking (and travel) schedule for at least the next 4 years and so forth.

Of course, whatever she does, it remains to be seen if her supporters will follow her lead and vote Obama in November. What are their alternatives? I guess they could vote for McCain. But I think their passion for him might cool somewhat by October. Or they could stay home (especially if Obama pulls ahead in the polls and it looks like a blowout). I think the former is more likely than the latter. Or, even some combination of the two -- in other words, it may not make a difference one way or the other what Hillary's disgruntled supporters do in November.

So where does that leave us as Democrats? With two incredibly strong candidates each of whom has tens of millions of supporters who -- if they wise up -- can win a victory in November of truly immense proportions.

Bottom line: the stakes are very high. Just consider the kind of SCOTUS justices that McCain would appoint. That alone should scare y'all -- all y'all -- straight.

by Mark Adams

The weak Puerto Rico turn-out disappointed Hillary shills, (despite the shrieking) and completely undermined her specious argument that as long as you don't count caucuses and all the people in Michigan who showed up to vote against her she just squeaked out a popular vote "win." Now if she could get 90% of the outstanding superdelegates ... Feh! These people are nutz.

When's the last time you recall a presidential candidate, and her whole family, campaigning in Puerto Rico? Ever? And not just a pit stop but sticking it out with the beach-combers and sun worshipers for over a week. A territory that is the definition of voting for something that doesn't count since they have zero say in the general election.

I seem to remember something Hillary said about Michigan not counting and now her folks are upset that she didn't get all the delegates there. But they are trumpeting a win in Puerto Rico when only about a third of the voters they expected gave a damn. And after all that, Puerto Rico didn't show up.

When Hillary Clinton’s argument to the superdelegates comes down to bragging about a victor in Puerto Rico, you know her campaign is really over.

I know I'm supposed to be a grown-up about all this and make it easy for the Clinton supporters to save face and bring everybody together. But see, I was never really an Obama supporter per se. But long ago I resisted the urge to continue to undermine the probable, and now presumptive Democratic nominee, even when it looked like Hillary had as good a shot as Barack. There are bigger fish to fry, namely: the eradication of conservative domination of -- nay, even participation in American politics.

I really don't give a rats ass about alleged Democrats who would even suggest they would vote for John McCain or would sit out or vote independent come November because they feel slighted or robbed due to Hillary Clinton's failed run for President. If you're that shallow, that much of an ingrate narcissist, I really don't have much to say to you.

If you're still fighting against Obama, you're fighting the wrong guy, you're on the wrong side. If you're still following Hillary, you're not following a leader, but a loser. John Aravosis lays out the reality, and if you can't handle the reality you need medicated.

We started with half the country hating Hillary, and now she's managed to add half the Democratic party to the "hate Hillary club" as well. So, while Hillary definitely knows a thing or two about unpopularity, maybe she should clean up her own house before attacking others and doing John McCain's dirty work.

I feel no need to be magnanimous to the "other side." As far as I'm concerned I'm the other side too. I got over it. My guy didn't have what it took to get the nomination either. Neither Barack Obama nor his supporters made any grand overtures to me. Nobody needed to kiss my ass.

But I know where my loyalties lie, and more importantly where they don't. I never felt the evident sense of entitlement I'm seeing from some in Camp Clinton. Why on earth must special dispensation be made to Hillary's constituency. You're either supporting the nominee, and that means you're for Barack Obama, or you're worse than any Republican. You're a two-faced, traitorous, small-minded, selfish cry-baby with no rationality.

See, I don't think I need to "get" anything. It the Clinton supporters weren't bitching (yeah, I said it) about four meaningless delegates being "hijacked" from a meaningless beauty contest, they'd be whining about something else just as stupid. While it might be worth it to make them shut up, it probably wouldn't be enough to do the trick. It's more a commentary on how ridiculous the Clintonistas act and how pathetic they sound than any desire that justice be done on my part. There was never any way to fairly fix an unfair contest, and that's what Michigan was.

This thing is over. Get in line or get out of the way. From what I've seen in the way the Clinton campaign has comported themselves it's a very good thing she lost, and we may have dodged a bullet by not letting Bill near the White House again.

by Mark Adams

No doubt Senator Clinton is sorry for invoking the tragic memory of Robert F. Kennedy's assassination as a reason to stay in the race. No doubt she was not thinking like some Wise Guys making a not so subtle threat. That's not what happened.

Senator Clinton said she had been attempting to point out that previous campaigns had also continued into June.

Democrat Robert Kennedy was running for his party's presidential nomination when he was shot dead in June 1968.

A spokesman for rival Democrat hopeful, Barack Obama said Mrs Clinton's comment "has no place in this campaign".

She was not making Obama on offer he can't refuse. Not really.

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June... We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it."

Observers say the remarks could be damaging if people were to interpret them as an indication that Mrs Clinton believes the assassination of her rival would benefit her campaign.

Throughout this campaign, the memories of JFK, RFK and MLK have been invoked to describe the inspiration and agendas of Barack Obama and John Edwards, but not Hillary Clinton. Maybe she was feeling left out.

Unfortunately, Hillary did not talk about Robert Kennedy today as an icon of the progressive movement, a man whose leadership stands as a cornerstone of what it means to be a Democrat to a generation. She spoke of him as just another politician doing what it takes to win, and she didn't even get that right.

Here's a hint. Don't use seminal historical figures to justify your hacktakularness. Say that you want to be like them, not that your sorry-ass behavior wasn't anything worse than they did -- unless of course you're a Republican making your own icons look bad by association with you.

Just leave our heroes alone.

by Mark Adams

It looks like MyDD's Todd Beeton has gotten on board the Kum-By-Yah '08 bus tour for the Obama/Clinton Dream Ticket. There's a lot of rethinking going on right now, at least among the saner parts of the reality based community.

Mind you, signals couldn't be more mixed right now with Clinton insisting that that the reports of her asking for, and Obama refusing her the VP slot, are unfounded, but still being reported on as accurate rumors -- because for all we know there might actually be rumors out there (ya think?) which may or may not make some self-important whiny-assed cry babies act more mature? so they stop their incessant Obama bashing, (or Clinton bashing). (HT: S.No!)

You almost have to ask yourself the question: Is it better to have Hillary's supporters out there doing McCain/Lieberman '08's job for them, questioning the very legitimacy of Obama's all but sure nomination from now until 2012? Or, despite going out of her way to just piss everybody off, and as much as it would suck to give in to what amounts to blackmail due to the poisoned atmosphere, should we learn to live with Hillary on the ticket just to avoid fighting this thing on two fronts?

Frankly, even if Hillary whole-heartedly supports and campaigns for Barack, many of her die-hards will never give it up unless they get what they think they deserve. I just can't help thinking that all this would have been just that more easier on my developing ulcer had Hillary's name been Bill and (s)he had been running against some nice Irish guy named Barry O'Banyon.

I am an Obama man through and through but I have to ask the question: Is it better for Barack to have Hillary outside the tent pissing in, or inside the tent pissing out?

Before you pop a blood vessel, follow me over to Camera Three and let's talk about it...

First there was this:

Whoopi Goldberg asked her co-hosts on "The View" how they would describe Mrs. Clinton’s historic battle for the Democratic nomination.

"A man took it away from a woman," Joy Behar replied. "Then they yelled at her for complaining about it."

Oh my. If you think that the zeitgeist has a lot to do with who wins the presidency (and I do), then none of this is good. Obama has Oprah, true. But The View is also a cultural icon.

Then there's this, by way of Chris Matthews quoting Chris Rock (or so he suggested):

We never heard of "superdelegates" until a brother got the nomination.

Not good. Not good if you want to get past this and get on with squashing McCain ASAP.

If that isn't enough, there's this from Chuck Todd:

We do wonder if Obama does end up in a no man's land where he's taken enough delegates off the table to prevent Clinton from getting the magic number, but there are enough undeclared supers sitting out to prevent Obama from claiming victory, which would give these supers the opportunity to become brokers. Perhaps Obama-Clinton ticket brokers?

Fair? Fair is for children.

Probable? Perhaps not.

But possible? Anything is possible. And if you've ever done politics, or any kind of negotiating, you know you must have a Plan B just in case.

So here's my question: if you're Obama, is it better to have Hillary outside the tent pissing in? Or inside the tent, pissing out?

On one hand, Hillary stands for everything Barack is against: the old way of doing politics, the failed establishment that got us into Iraq, lobbyists, talking out of both sides of your mouth just to win the election, the whole thing -- and more. Plus she's shown she only cares about herself, that she's basically running a protection racket: Clinton, Inc.

On the other hand, she will not go quietly. Her restless shade will stalk the land for the rest of the campaign -- and for the next four years.

So here's a thought: what better way to neutralize her than making her Vice President? Think about it: two-thirds of all vice presidents never ascended to the presidency. It is just as dead-end a position as Secretary of Transportation. It's "not worth a pitcher of warm piss," in the immortal words of "Cactus Jack" Garner, who was FDR's VP for eight years.

And so it could be -- if President Obama makes it so.

And another thing -- while it's good to keep your friends close, you should know by now that what you really need to do is keep your enemies closer.

On the other hand, you can say she brings nothing to the ticket. New York is in the bag, Illinois is in the bag, and the Appalachian states will not vote for the Democratic ticket just because Hillary is #2. (Or, I suspect, #1 but that's a discussion for another day.)

On the first hand, there's Arkansas.

And there's also this: too many Hillary supporters are on the record saying they will sit this one out if she doesn't get the nomination.

Can you be sure that, in fact, they'll "get over it?"

The very formulation of the question makes me wince. But it's worse than that: I don't even want to ask the question because I do NOT know the answer. And if you're honest, you'll admit that you don't know the answer either, do you?

So that brings me to the final question (and our poll): if Obama picks Hillary, will you sit this one out -- or work your ass off to get the ticket elected in November?

• According to the NY Times, the Obama campaign raised over $31 million in April -- and has $37 million in cash on hand.
• According to the LA Times, the Clinton campaign is nearly $20 million in debt even after raising $22 million in April, one of her best months.
• According to MSNBC, McCain ($22 million) plus the RNC ($40 million) has more cash on hand than Obama ($37 million) plus the DNC ($4.5 million) has.
• No word from the Republicans on how bad it sucks to be the NRCC and the NRSC.
• Hillary wins Kentucky in a blowout, now needs only 104% of all remaining unpledged delegates to secure the nomination. Terry McAuliffe is optimistic.
• In other news, the price of oil topped $130/barrel for the first time on Wednesday.






• And last, but not least, the Detroit Pistons claimed victory last night in the first game of the Eastern Conference Finals when they outscored the Boston Celtics in the fourth quarter, 22-19. Unfortunately, the referees insisted on counting the scores of the other three quarters as well and the Celtics got the nomination...erm, won the game.

• So McCain's campaign is being run by agents of a foreign government -- including the Saudis. No, I'm not making this up.
• Hillary Clinton wants you to know that Karl Rove thinks she'd be the toughest candidate vs. McCain in November. No, I'm not making this up.
• No, seriously: Karl Rove said it and Hillary believed it.
• Apparently the White House is mad that NBC somehow edited their interview with Bush in a way that made them unhappy. NBC responded that the unedited version has been available on the MSNBC website. Bush counsel Ed Gillespie responds: "It's simply absurd for people to have to log onto the Internet and stream video to get accurate information from NBC News." Yes! And I think everyone should receive a brand new TV remote from the government too. Those old ones that you and I own have waaaaay too many buttons.
• Pistons vs. Celtics tonight, baby! And the Red Wings playing for the Stanley Cup again! How cool is that?
• And, lastly, I've tweaked my blog's layout to eliminate some ads. It (may or) may not reduce the ad revenues and/but will make the blog easier to read. I've also increased the number of posts on the front page. Lastly, I'll be adding a "Favorite Videos" sidebar. If you have some suggestions please post them in the comments section. Thanks!