Upcoming
August 27
August 29
Disaster Movie
My Mexican Shivah
September 3
The Pool
September 5
August Evening
Bangkok Dangerous
Save Me
Last Grasp
"And now -- right before she stumps for Obama tomorrow in Nevada -- comes a YouTube clip of Hillary telling her supporters that she wants a 'strategy' to have her delegates heard at the Democratic convention. Watching the video clip, you can tell that Hillary still hasn't gotten over losing, and given all of the people she had telling her that she'd be the next president, we can understand the denial; she had been preparing for this moment for nearly four years.
"But we've asked this question a million times and we ask it again: Would the Clintons have been as deferential (or be expected to be as deferential) to Obama if the roles were reversed? What has happened over the last few days has given Obama the high ground here. " -- from this morning's "First Read" on MSNBC.com.
This also from Time's Karen Tumulty, filed ysterday (8.6): "Clinton has been giving tacit encouragement to suggestions that her name be placed in nomination at the convention, a symbolic move that would be a reminder of the bruising primary battle. 'No decisions have been made,' Clinton said when asked in California -- to whoops and applause -- about that possibility. Still, it was hard to miss what Clinton would like to see in the pointed way she added, 'Delegates can decide to do this on their own. They don't need permission.'"
I can't resist posting this [edited] reader response on the "First Read" blog, to wit: "The Clintons have become like the Night of the Living Dead zombies. Hillary and Bill: take our advice. We are wealthy, white, middle-aged and female, but we REJECTED you. We are also well-educated and we know that Obama is the future and you are the past. When we do elect a woman, and we will, it will be one that has won on her own merits, not by staying married to a serial womanizer and saying anything to get elected.
"And just so you know, you are on the cusp of ruining any chance of a political future if you don't STFU." -- LB, Virginia.
Posted by Jeffrey Wells on August 7, 2008 at 7:23 AM
comment #1
Mgmax says ...
Imagine my surprise that they were merely laying low, waiting for the moment to strike.
I'm sure they see this as pressure to put her on the ticket as VP, but it's also a demonstration of why Obama should want to send them as far into Siberia as he can.
Posted by Mgmax at August 7, 2008 8:16 AM
comment #2
JHRussell says ...
Her name SHOULD be placed into nomination and the voting held accordingly.
What, are you Obamamaniacs just a little bit worried that his slide in the polls has Dem insiders worried and the delegates just might switch their votes?
Posted by JHRussell at August 7, 2008 8:31 AM
comment #3
Rob says ...
As usual, some people are outraged by Hillary Clinton's behavior...when she acts as every candidate in her position in history ever has.
The Hillary bashers would have saved themselves a lot of pearl-clutching if they had bothered to ever follow a Presidential election before the one that featured a woman for them to hate.
Posted by Rob at August 7, 2008 10:23 AM
comment #4
Edward says ...
I've been an Obama supporter from early on, but have no problem with Clinton's name being placed in nomination. It's what happens in a convention and if she had won the nomination I would have proudly voted for her in November.
Posted by Edward at August 7, 2008 10:32 AM
comment #5
Rev. Slappy says ...
The self-absorption of the Clintons is pretty staggering. They couldn't take the high road if somebody drew them a map of how to find it.
Posted by Rev. Slappy at August 7, 2008 11:06 AM
comment #6
Sweetbubba says ...
This really is pretty egregious. She's selfishly trying to push herself into the VP position and doesn't seem to care about the damage it's doing to her party.
Re: Rob - you're nuts if you think this is usual - it's unprecedented for someone to linger in a race like this
Posted by Sweetbubba at August 7, 2008 1:31 PM
comment #7
D.Z. says ...
Looks like someone took Hillary literally. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_el_pr/obama_threat
Posted by D.Z. at August 7, 2008 2:05 PM
comment #8
JHRussell says ...
"This really is pretty egregious. She's selfishly trying to push herself into the VP position and doesn't seem to care about the damage it's doing to her party.
Re: Rob - you're nuts if you think this is usual - it's unprecedented for someone to linger in a race like this"
Dude, total bullshit.
How old are you, and how many presidential campaigns have you followed closely in your life?
I am in my 50s, and have been a presidential campaign junkie since 1968 (ahh, the good old days!).
Hillary is not "lingering" in this race. She dropped out over a month ago. Back in the day, nobody dropped out - they took it to the conventions hoping for a floor fight. So your "unprecedented" comment is total bullshit...
She can no more "push" herself into the VP slot than I can...she is looking for some respect for her delegates, and Obama would be foolish to limit their voices at the convention...any attempt to keep HRC's name out of nomination will be a huge mistake (and one I hope he makes)...
Posted by JHRussell at August 7, 2008 2:09 PM
comment #9
Chris Willman says ...
JHRussell: "Hillary is not "lingering" in this race. She dropped out over a month ago. Back in the day, nobody dropped out - they took it to the conventions hoping for a floor fight. So your "unprecedented" comment is total bullshit..."
Define "back in the day," please. Since you're a historian, I would love to know the last time there was a true floor fight at a Democratic convention, of the kind you're hoping for. I'm only in my 40s, so I can't remember that far back.
Posted by Chris Willman at August 7, 2008 2:16 PM
comment #10
Joshua Mooney says ...
"Now remember, when things look bad and it looks like you're not gonna make it, then you gotta get mean. I mean plumb, mad-dog mean. 'Cause if you lose your head and you give up then you neither live nor win. That's just the way it is."
--The Outlaw Josey Wales
Hello, Barack? Time to get plumb, mad-dog mean.
Posted by Joshua Mooney at August 7, 2008 2:16 PM
comment #11
Rob says ...
What lingering?! She's dropped out and thrown her support behind Obama, and urged her 18 million voters, publicly and repeatedly, to do likewise.
And you know what? In November, almost all of us will be glad to vote for him. I know this, you know this, Clinton and Obama both know this. So why not drop the "What's she REALLY up to?" conspiracy theories?
Posted by Rob at August 7, 2008 2:17 PM
comment #12
JHRussell says ...
Chris Willman:
Go read up on 1968 and how Humphrey got the nomination without ever running in much less winning a single primary...
Or read how the Dems screwed Gary Hart in 1984 for VP...
The conventions these days are too sanitized - they are 4 day commercials, very boring.
Posted by JHRussell at August 7, 2008 2:30 PM
comment #13
Joshua Mooney says ...
It might make for exciting, unsanitized television, JHRussell, but my guess is the Dems wouldn't care for a repeat of Chicago '68.
"The whole world's watching." Now, that's literally true.
Posted by Joshua Mooney at August 7, 2008 2:46 PM
comment #14
BurmaShave says ...
Waiting for this moment for almost four years? Try forty.
Posted by BurmaShave at August 7, 2008 5:06 PM
comment #15
D.Z. says ...
JHR: Humphrey doesn't count, because RFK got shot.
Posted by D.Z. at August 7, 2008 6:11 PM
comment #16
Terry McCarty says ...
D.Z. wrote:
JHR: Humphrey doesn't count, because RFK got shot.
After RFK's death, there was Eugene McCarthy. And the Democratic Party went "center" and chose Humphrey.
Posted by Terry McCarty at August 7, 2008 11:15 PM
comment #17
JHRussell says ...
"JHR: Humphrey doesn't count, because RFK got shot."
You have a bizarre way of looking at history...doesn't count???
Humphrey was ahead of RFK in total delegates even including RFK's win in CA...they were headed to a huge floor fight at the convention...the point I was making is that Humphrey did it without running in, much less winning, a single state that held a primary...
After RFK's assassination, the Dems were sweating that Wallace could somehow become the dark horse nominee in a floor fight, so they threw McCarthy under the bus and went with the safe but tepid and unelectable Humphrey...
Posted by JHRussell at August 8, 2008 6:26 AM
comment #18
Mgmax says ...
How was Humphrey unelectable? His loss to Nixon is one of the closest in history.
McGovern, who ran on a McCarthy-tyle platform, got walloped by comparison.
Posted by Mgmax at August 8, 2008 6:31 AM
comment #19
JHRussell says ...
"How was Humphrey unelectable? His loss to Nixon is one of the closest in history."
Wrong.
Read the results again: Nixon won an electoral landslide (301 to 191), but it was a tight popular vote because of the fairly successful 3rd party candidacy of George Wallace that took popular and electoral votes away from Nixon, not Humphrey...Wallace won 5 states with just under 50 electoral votes...
I know just how touchy you Dems are over electoral versus popular votes, though...
Posted by JHRussell at August 8, 2008 7:42 AM
comment #20
EB says ...
This shows how stuck back in the 1950s this country really is. The idea of a woman becoming President is just uncalled for. Older white American men would have to look up to her imagine that. They viewed her as hormonal meaning she'll just fly off the handle at any given moment. Or they dont trust her merely on what happened with Bill. So instead of having a person who has the experience and support of the people. We are faced with having either a half black ill experienced man or a old war hero who's totally out of touch with all that surrounds him. If it was a choice out of Hillary, Obama, or McCain. Hillary will bring this country around again, not the other two.
Posted by EB at August 8, 2008 12:12 PM
Post a comment