Wednesday, May 07, 2008

What's Her Game?

Last night, Hillary Clinton lost to Barack Obama in North Carolina by a hefty 14 percentage points, and squeaked out a tiny victory by only 2 points in Indiana, which was too close to call until after 1 a.m. She had been hoping to close the gap in North Carolina - indeed, polls going into the primary had shown her doing just that - and to take Indiana decisively. She did neither.

The various pundits have declared the race is basically over. As Tim Russert put it,

"'We now know who the Democratic nominee’s going to be, and no one’s going to dispute it,' he said on MSNBC. 'Those closest to her will give her a hard-headed analysis, and if they lay it all out, they’ll say: ‘What is the rationale? What do we say to the undeclared super delegates tomorrow? Why do we tell them you’re staying in the race?’ And tonight, there’s no good answer for that.'"

Obama and Clinton both made speeches last night that had a certain indication of moving beyond the primaries. Both pledged to support "whoever" got the nomination. This was heartening. Hillary had cancelled her morning television appearances, so it seemed she would be thinking long and hard about whether to continue fighting, especially after having to loan her campaign money in order to keep going.

But no. Today's newspapers declare "Clinton Pledges to Fight On."

"'I’m staying in this race until there is a nominee, and obviously I’m going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee,' Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference in Shepherdstown, W.Va., where she flew in a last-minute change of plans Wednesday."

But her own campaign officials realize that even if all the delegates from disputed primaries in Michigan and Florida were seated at the Democratic convention, Mrs. Clinton would still not have enough delegates to clinch the presidential nomination; she would still be about 100 delegates short.

So what is the point of continuing? Is it so she can go out on a positive note by winning a couple of the smaller states that remain and are likely to go her way? Is it to be able to make a case that she should be Obama's running mate as VP? Or to garner a position in an Obama cabinet? Is she actually delusional and really thinks she can still win?

I am not heartless; I know how disappointing it must feel to her, after all this work and all this effort, to come up short at the end, with a newcomer like Obama stealing her show. But the people are speaking, and they are saying they want something new, a new outlook, a new paradigm. Maybe Obama isn't perfect, as he himself said in his victory speech. But he is trying to do something different. In his own words:

"Yes, we know what's coming. I'm not naive. We've already seen it, the same names and labels they always pin on everyone who doesn't agree with all their ideas, the same efforts to distract us from the issues that affect our lives, by pouncing on every gaffe and association and fake controversy, in the hopes that the media will play along.

The attempts to play on our fears and exploit our differences, to turn us against each other for political gain, to slice and dice this country into red states and blue states, blue collar and white collar, white, black, brown, young, old, rich, poor...

... this is the race we expect, no matter whether it's myself or Senator Clinton who is the nominee. The question then is not what kind of campaign they will run; it's what kind of campaign we will run.

It's what we will do to make this year different. You see, I didn't get into this race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for president because this is the time to end it.

We will end it -- we will end it this time not because I'm perfect. I think we know at this phase of the campaign that I am not.

We will end it not by duplicating the same tactics and the same strategies as the other side, because that will lead us down the same path of polarization and of gridlock.

We will end it by telling the truth.

We will end it by telling the truth forcefully, repeatedly, confidently, and by trusting that the American people will embrace the need for change, even if it's coming from an imperfect messenger, because that's how we've always changed this country, not from the top down, but from the bottom up, when you, the American people, decide that the stakes are too high and the challenges are too great."


These are the reasons that Obama continues to bring out new voters, to get them to come to the polls. I'm not saying he and Hillary Clinton don't have similar visions for the improvements they want to see in this country. But how they get there are very different. And people are tired of the old way.

David Brooks had an interesting column in the NY Times the other day, comparing their two world views. He sees Obama and Clinton as having two conflicting views of how to get things done: "Combat vs. Composure."

On Obama:

"Thoughtful and conversational, he doesn’t seem to possess the trait that Clinton has: automatically assuming that critics are always wrong.

Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it’s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division.

This contrast between combat and composure defines the Democratic race. The implicit Clinton argument is that politics is an inherently nasty business. Human nature, as she said Sunday, means that progress comes only through conquest. You’d better elect a leader who can intimidate. You’d better elect someone who has given herself permission to be brutal.

Obama’s campaign grows out of the longstanding reform tradition. His implicit argument is that politics doesn’t have to be this way. Dishonesty and brutality aren’t inevitable; they’re what gets in the way. Obama’s friend and supporter Cass Sunstein described the Obama ideal in The New Republic: 'Obama believes that real change usually requires consensus, learning and accommodation.'"


Brooks concludes with:

"...amid the storms of the presidency, their basic worldviews would shape their presidencies. Obama is instinctively a conversationalist and community-mobilizer. Clinton, as she says, will fight and fight. If elected, she’ll have the power to take the Hobbesian struggle she perceives, and turn it into remorseless reality."

This is what the voters are realizing, and that is why, when they go to the polls, many are not giving their votes to Hillary Clinton. It's a pervasive feeling that if she wins, this rancor and fighting will go on and on. People are tired of it. Yes, Obama fought back against Hillary when he was attacked; I'm not saying he didn't play the game a bit himself. But it wouldn't have been necessary if she hadn't gone on the offensive in the first place. It isn't his nature to be that way. But it is hers.

Maureen Dowd also had some comments about Obama and Clinton, questioning whether Hillary has sold her soul for the White House prize.

"It’s hard to believe that this Hillary is the same Wellesley girl who said she yearned for a more 'ecstatic and penetrating mode of living.' What would that young Hillary — who volunteered on Gene McCarthy’s anti-war campaign; who cried the day Martin Luther King Jr. was killed;...who once returned a bottle of perfume after feeling guilty about the poverty around her — think of this shape-shifting, cynical Hillary?

She’s so at odds with who she used to be, even in the Senate, that if she were to get elected, who would voters be electing?

...As she makes a last frenzied and likely futile attempt to crush the butterfly, it’s as though she’s crushing the remnants of her own girlish innocence."


I think even Hillary's ardent supporters would admit that Hillary has run the gamut of methods to try to win the White House, and these have included saying or doing whatever it takes to get there. Dowd asks the same question I had asked not long ago; if she were to be elected, who would she be?

I think it's time for her to realize that, no matter how hard you try, you can't always get what you want. If Hillary truly wants to help the country and prevent John McCain from "serving out Bush's third term," as Barack Obama said, she needs to do the noble thing and stand aside and support Obama. No, it isn't fair. Yes, she had the experience, she had the bona fides, the credentials, the grit and intelligence. But she is not winning. He is.

If she wants to maintain her standing in the Democratic Party, and have a good chance of an important position in the new administration, it is time to unite the party and move forward. If she really wants universal health care, if she really wants to help the American people, now is the time to help Obama rather than continue to fight a useless and divisive fight. Because now the tide is turning against her and she can only cause harm if she continues.

John McCain is waiting in the wings. He has already announced his intention to appoint conservative "strict constructionist" judges to the courts, including up to three possible Supreme Court nominees. The future of our country depends on defeating him. Now is the time for Hillary Clinton to look at the bigger picture. As Humphrey Bogart said in "Casablanca,"

"I'm not good at being noble, but it doesn't take much to see that the problems of three [or two!] little people don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world."

It's time for Hillary to make that speech and gracefully step aside.

29 comments:

Cosa Nostradamus said...

.
Maybe she's afraid Bill will smack her around, if she quits. Has anyone offered to get her into one of those safe houses, where Bill can't find her? You know, like a battered women's shelter? Do they have those in Arkansas?
.

Mauigirl said...

Hmm, that's something I hadn't thought of. I think it's more likely the other way around! I think she has the upper hand these days. But I may be wrong!

enigma4ever said...

she and Bill left Indiana in seperate planes last night....hmmm....and then today she was up and campaigning like nothing happened....unreal...and then at the presser this afternoon...saying that she was going to win the rest of the Contests...

( Costra Bill ? I think Hill wears the pants in that house....I think she is definently capable of throwing a sink or two).

Great post...I loved the exerpts you included, I had not read Brooks on this....Dowd is right about this...

I don't know what her plan is....

LET'S TALK said...

Outstanding post Mauigirl, I am speechless!

Hillary should have done the math two months ago and stepped aside but for some reason she can't seem to let it go.

D.K. Raed said...

It is BEYOND time for her to step down from the podium & face reality. Get off Planet Clinton & do some old-fashioned math. If ya don't got tha votes, you don't got the nomination. To obtain it in a back-room measure would be a travesty.

ps, I've been meaning to get by your blog for some time ... I'm so glad I did today for this excellent post!

The Future Was Yesterday said...

I can't stand any of the three, so I won't have much comment on your post. I had to fight through neck deep gloating just to get this far!:) What her "game" is, I really don't know. As a Clinton watcher when they were still in Arkansas, I can tell you once Hilary starts something, "she finishes it," often to her own detriment. But she isn't the Hilary I knew back then, or in 2000, or even 2004. I don't know who this coniving Bitch is, but I know who Obama is:

Nor at all what he appears to be.

enigma4ever said...

I came back to read this post again..excellent post....we need to focus on healing and moving forward...and the people that insinuate and try to deflate or distract any hope or inspiration....we have to walk by them, hold our heads high....RFK, MLK, to name a few....that were not always held in high regard....but who were the Real Deal....

( thanks for coming by last night...)

Cosa Nostradamus said...

.
I'm just sayin' . . .

Bill seems to be running her campaign. Into the ground. Does anyone think he's going to sit back and bake cookies as First Gentleman? All of her much-inflated "experience" comes down to being his wife. That seems to be the job she's running for now.

Everyone has been calling her a desperate woman who will do anything to get elected. She even hung in there throughout the Monica thing, just to get her shot at power. But what if she never had the option of leaving Bill, as many abused women seem to believe of their situations?

Does a "strong woman" really put up with all the public humiliations Bill has put Hillary through, to this day? Those humiliations were the only thing that got her into the Senate: She'd never held office before. And her only "experience" till then was the health-care fiasco she engineered.

I see battered woman's syndrome here, possibly dating to her childhood, way before Bill. Her parents were Republicans, after all. Her drive to become President at any cost may be nothing more than attempt to validate herself in Daddy's eyes, or Bill's. And it is certainly fueled by Bill's own lust for power.

It's just the vibe I'm getting, after all this. Something very unhealthy about the whole thing. Like a pimp & 'ho' relationship: The ho may be beautiful, brilliant, even a powerful dominatrix, but the pimp rules her through fear and psychological manipulation, often with drugs involved. What stronger drug is there than power?

I'm just sayin' . . .
.

Larry said...

Obviously Hillary would keep that bottle of perfume today, since her enabling McCain will bring that poverty she used to abhor.

Mauigirl said...

Enigma, I really think she is in denial. Although tonight I read that McAuliffe said it wouldn't go all the way to the convention so that may be a way of starting to ease into the idea of defeat.

Thanks for hosting the live blog on Tuesday! It was good to be watching the returns together.

Thanks, LT. And I agree - she should have quit sooner. But I suppose Pennsylvania gave her a false sense of hope.

DK, I totally agree - this cannot be a back room deal. And thanks, I'm so glad you came by!

Future, I do think Obama needs further seasoning, but I think we will learn a lot more about him as the campaign continues, and perhaps those who don't think there is substance there may find out otherwise. I don't know enough about him to know one way or the other. I just know I don't want another Clinton White House.

Cosa, I do agree it is not a healthy relationship - hard to say what either of their motivations are beyond power. When I'm feeling generous, I think she understands she'll never change him but loves him anyway; when I'm feeling cynical, I think she knows she can't change him and she stays with him for the perks and the power, the influence she can get from him. But to your point, there are also battered women who are in this situation. Maybe not physically, maybe psychologically. We never know what happens behind closed doors.

Hi Larry, yes, she would not only keep it, she'd ask people to give it to her for free. Because she deserves it.

Figlet said...

excellent post - i'm reading you from now on and not the newspapers :-)

happy days

Mauigirl said...

Thanks Figlet! I'll have a lot to live up to then!

Faded said...

Hillary's looking past the nomination at this point. Still building fighter cred and looking to triangulate some personal victories out of her defeat.

All at the long term expense of the Democratic party, I'm afraid. But her own quest for glory aside, I'm glad its almost over.

by the way- i moved, it's not politics, but it's still bloggin...

http://lostinthetubes.blogspot.com/

Faded said...

No Discipline at all..

I couldn't resist this one, btw

http://houserisingsons.blogspot.com/2008/05/losing-gracefully.html

Mauigirl said...

Great, glad you couldn't resist the siren song of blogging! I'll be over to both of your places - and will link the new one to my blogroll!

CalumCarr said...

Thanks for visiting my place. I came aross your name earlier this evening on another site - can't remember which - and then was surprised to see you had visited me.

Thought would return the compliment.

Good writing. I'll come back.

KGMom said...

Mauigirl--hello again. Let me offer a slightly different take. I supported Hillary in PA, and was very proud to vote for the first time for a woman for president.
When I first read the Maureen Dowd editorial, I confess I was a bit puzzled--remarking that the Hillary of today isn't the same as the idealist young woman as she was at Wellesley! Really, who of us who has managed to live several decades is the same person we were in college? Come on--who?
Yes, the math shows it is "over." But here's my prediction--if Obama can win the Presidency (and I am a long time liberal and hope he does) I predict he will be a one-term president unless he can learn how to fight hard. His idealism is refreshing--so was Jimmy Carter's. We want our candidates to be idealists, and our presidents to be realists. Hillary started out a realist--and for that, we deemed her not the one to be the Democratic nominee for president. Hmmmm.

Mauigirl said...

KGMom, thanks for your comment! You raise some very valid points. I am not a huge fan of Maureen Dowd (she's often a bit too glib and artificial in her opinions) but I think I know what she was trying to say here.

I don't think anyone would expect Hillary to be the same as she was back in Wellesley (I sure am not the same as I was at that age either!). But I think it is a feeling that she has gone too far in the other direction, toward the fighting and the tactics that the younger Hillary would have abhorred, and doing whatever it takes to beat down Obama. I have no problem with someone who stands up for themselves and makes their case for why they should be president. It's when part of that case is why the other person is not fit to be president that it bothers me. Can't people run hard without tearing each other down? Maybe I'm the naive one.

I know what you mean about Carter. I was much younger then of course so probably was not following all of what he tried to do as president (and we had no internet and blogs to read to figure it out back then!). But I actually voted for Reagon in 1980 (yes, I confess it) because I felt he wasn't getting things done properly and the country was in a mess. (It didn't hurt that I had a Republican boyfriend at the time...I wonder what I would have done today, speaking of how people change as they age...)

I think the difference is that Obama is a quick learner and will make sure to listen to other, more experienced people if he gets the job while still exercising his own good judgement. I think he is more comparable to JFK than to Carter. Not saying JFK might not have made mistakes if he had been able to serve his second term (would he have gotten us just as embroiled in Vietnam as Johnson eventually did? Perhap.) but personalitywise I think he's a closer fit with Obama. He too was inexperienced and idealistic but he managed to stare down the Russians, he took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs disaster ("W" won't even admit something IS a disaster) and he stood up for civil rights. The latter because of the advice of Bobby Kennedy. I feel this is more of the paradigm that Obama might follow. But of course, I could be totally wrong. And if he doesn't do well in that first term, Hillary will only be 65 or so...and will have learned a lot.

I think if she had managed to stay in one, populist but positive, groove the whole time instead of seeming to switch personalities and tactics every time something wasn't working, she might have won.

Obama stayed on message, and it was an optimistic message, which always helps. As Carter found out, talking about "malaise" doesn't play as well as talking about "morning in America." I mean, she found herself actually being the one running against "hope." Not a good position to be in.

What it really comes down to is that if she had run by herself she could have shaped her message and honed it for the generally campaign, but she found herself having to run against a new phenomenon who was galvanizing whole swathes of voters that she didn't know how to reach. So she painted herself into a corner where she finds herself saying that she is the one who should run because she does the best against "hard working white" people who are less educated.

Don't get me wrong, I really do feel bad for her and it is just too bad that two great people had to both run in the same election year. I do think she's very qualified but the tenor of the country is that they want something new. And she is not offering a new way or a new viewpoint or even new people in the White House. Just my take on it.

I'm glad that you will support Obama if he becomes the nominee. We need every Democrat to vote for him in November to make sure we don't get a President McCain. The consequences would be horrendous.

D.K. Raed said...

Maui, I don't know if she HAS changed that much. I saw a Bio of her a few weeks ago, and there was an interview w/young Hillary, wife of young Bill, standing w/baby Chelsea in her arms. She was talking about dirty tactics the Clinton campaign had been accused of in seeking re-election in Arkansas (she was Bill's reelection campaign mgr). She said, Everything is fair in politics, including tearing your opponent's head off or cutting him off at the knees or .... !

NBC ran her Bio, 1-hr long, followed by 1-hr of a McCain Bio. No Bio for Obama! I think this was right after the Ohio primary. I've never seen it on TV again (hers or McCain's, and apparently they did not do one on Obama yet).

Kuanyin said...

You make an excellent political analyst! You should be on You Tube!

Comrade Kevin said...

You can't run a John Kerry strategy in a change election cycle.

When political scientists reflect upon this historic election, they will chalk Obama's success up to a combination of good long-range planning and a whole lot of luck.

I'd rather be lucky than good, honestly.

Mary Ellen said...

Mauigirl- I was reluctant to comment on this,but I will.

It's when part of that case is why the other person is not fit to be president that it bothers me. Can't people run hard without tearing each other down? Maybe I'm the naive one.

Hillary is "tearing down" Obama? So, when she corrects the lies he tells about her policies, that is tearing him down? I think you should look at your own candidate when it comes to "tearing down". What about the numerous times Obama used sexist remarks about Hillary, and used the race card to try to say that Bill and Hillary were racists? I think you need to take off the blinders and look carefully at Obama. You will actually see the bold-faced lies he told at the debates, you will see his constant flip-flopping on issues, you'll see a man who is a coward and afraid to debate Hillary because he can't answer the hard questions. I'm not talking about the questions about Reverend Wright, I'm talking about the economy. In the last debate he made a total fool of himself trying to discuss Capital Gains Taxes. It was obvious he was way out of his league on the issues.

And regarding Tim Russert saying the race is over...since when does that gasbag have a say as to when a race is over and who our nominee is going to be? It was your candidate, Obama, who said before the Indiana and NC elections that Indiana would be the tie breaker...he lost. So, Hillary's big win in PA meant nothing and the NC race is the deciding point now? Of course he was going to win that when there was more than 40% of the electorate who are black. When it comes to the swing States, he can't win them. Not to mention, he has been outspending Hillary 2 to 1 and sometimes 4 to 1 and he STILL can't win in those States. What does that say about your candidate? It says that he is going to get his ass kicked in the GE!


I think the difference is that Obama is a quick learner and will make sure to listen to other, more experienced people if he gets the job while still exercising his own good judgement.


Obama has consistently taken the advice of people he should be running from...Wright, Ayers, Auchi, Rezko, just to name a few. He not only has NO experience, he also has no clue to what to do about the insurmountable problems the US is facing. This is the guy you want running our country? A man who doesn't even know where the Great Lakes are located, thinks we have 57 States? The similarities to him and Bush are so evident. Bush also came into office with the idea that he could get the help he needed and to "learn on the job". How did that work out for us?

Obama will not be able to carry the Democratic base in the GE. He thinks he can get by with the AA vote and the youth vote, while ignoring the blue collar white voters. McCain is beating him in all the States we have to win...especially FL and MI. Do you honestly think that his denying them the right to a re-vote or to have their votes counted as is, will endear them to vote for him in the GE?

The only change that Obama has brought to the Democratic party is dirty Chicago politics. I've lived here all my life and he's in the thick of it and this is exactly how he is campaigning. Instead of making excuses for his lies and ignoring his dirty politics, you should do some research. Getting your news from MSNBC and Dowd is not helping you to make an informed decision.

As a woman, you should be very concerned with Obama's misogynistic views.

Oh...and tearing down is an art with Obama supporters, just read the comments above. cosa nostradamus and the remark about Bill "smacking" Hillary around, enigma4ever calling Bill Clinton, "Costra Bill" and making remarks about Hillary "wearing the pants" int he family...all of this is typical of people who can't discuss the issues, but instead use personal attacks on the opposing candidate. It's childish, to say the least...and shows an ignorance to policy.

I'm sorry if this comment is offensive to you, but I think you and the others on this blog need to do your homework. Citing media reports that are in the bag for Obama will keep you from learning the real truth.

Dorothy said...

You are right, he brings a calmness that is inspiring to a lot of us. Everytime we hear about another place we may be going to keep the peace, which we know is the oil...my heart sinks and I must admit Obama exudes the desire to be calm and consistent. I am so disappointed that she has separated the party this long. She knows it would be in the parties best interest to band together to concentrate on rebuilding and winning the election. Her stubbornness is sad.
Very good post, thanks for the highlights..

Dorothy from grammology
remember to call gram
www.grammology.com

Lil Jimmy said...

Excellent analysis, Maui Girl.

FranIAm said...

I am so behind in my reading so I will be brief as I spent all my time on this outstanding post.

It is an ugly mystery but it must stop, she has to step down.

Mauigirl said...

D.K., thanks for your response. I think you're right, once she got into the political world, she pretty much hardened up to the way she is now.

Kuanyin, thanks! ;-) I don't know if I can live up to that!

Comrade Kevin, you're right - luck and timing do have a lot to do with his success. The country is just so ready for a change.

Mary Ellen, please don't ever hesitate to comment here - I am open to other ideas and I am under no illusions that Obama is perfect. Sadly, no politician is. I have said that he too is not without blame in the mud slinging, but I don't know that he would have done much of it if she hadn't also been doing it. Some of the things he has said may have seemed sexist, but I am certain some of the things Hillary and Bill said could be considered code words for racism. Especially Hillary's most recent pronouncement that Obama can't win because hardworking white Americans won't vote for him. I am not sure who that insults more - those who do support Obama (are they not hard working?) or the white voters themselves that she is assuming would never support Obama if she were out of the running.

Perhaps both sides are oversensitive on these issues and both sides have played up the others' comments to be construed more offensively than they were meant. I don't know. But certainly Hillary and Bill are not blameless here.

I didn't watch the most recent debate; I heard he did not do well then. But he may have been so sick of answering the idiotic questions that the commentators were throwing at him that he just got sidetracked. I know, Hillary got the same treatment in the beginning, and that was bad too. I thought all of the debates were disgracefully run and more like Worldwide Wrestling Federation bouts than real debates.

I wasn't quoting Tim Russert to say that he had any authority to decide who wins - I just used his comment as an example of the way all the pundits have suddenly started this momentum toward Obama. Right after Pennsylvania, they were all pro-Hillary. So this can change on a dime, I know.

The reason her win in Indiana didn't convince people she had the momentum is because it was so narrow - and after her success in Pennsylvania and Obama's problems with Wright in the meantime, I think people would have expected her to have a big win in Indiana, which has a lot of those white blue collar types she is supposed to do well with. When she didn't, it indicated Obama had not been fatally wounded by the Wright controversy.

As for whether he can win in the general election, it's hard to say. But the fact that she beat him in some of these swing states does not mean he couldn't carry them in the fall when there is no other Democrat on the ballot. And a lot of those crossover Republicans may have been voting Hillary for ulterior motives and would have voted for McCain in the fall anyway.

I don't think it's fair to say he has been taking advice from Wright or Rezko. He went to Wright's church. He had a land deal with Rezko. It's not the same as taking advice from them. Sure, Wright was his mentor when he first joined the church and he continued to attend there. But I think it very unlikely he believes all of the same things Wright does.

I think one way this primary fight with Hillary Clinton has been good for Obama is that it has called his attention to the need to try to appeal to those white blue collar voters that you are mentioning. He may have started out thinking he didn't need them but he knows he does now and will make more effort to reach them, no doubt.

I don't think Obama is misogynistic, at least no more so than most men. I don't think his wife would be with him if he were; she's a pretty "liberated" woman, an attorney; she wouldn't put up with a husband who was anti-woman. I believe his voting record is just as good as Hillary's in regard to women's rights.

I'm not going to get into which supporters are harder on the candidates - I think there are hostile supporters on both sides.

Don't worry, I don't take my news from MSNBC (I hadn't watched it in weeks except in order to watch the election returns last week) and in general I don't even like Maureen Dowd. I just thought her perspective on this one issue was interesting.

I get most of my news from the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times (I like to get a viewpoint from two different sides).

I don't think Obama is perfect and I know he has a lot to learn. But I still feel he will be less divisive than having the Clintons back in office and I'm tired of the same people running the country for the past 20 years.

That's how I feel and I'm sorry we're not on the same side on this one. I'm not offended and I know you probably have more knowledge about Obama than most, since you live in his state.

But you see, Hillary's baggage is pretty bad herself. So it's not as if I ever felt she had a strong case for winning.

And I still feel Obama is trying to do something new and different, and I like that. I have to believe that or else I'd be too depressed to vote!

Dorothy, thanks for your comment. I think we do feel that calmness in him and it makes it feel as if we wouldn't be getting someone who would rush to war but would try to solve things peacefully.

L'il Jimmy, welcome, and thanks!

Fran, thanks, and I think she'll find a way to bow out gracefully. I really don't think she wants to divide the party long-term as it would be bad for her and Bill's legacy and also if she wanted to try to run again in the future.

Mary Ellen said...

Mauigirl-

I did answer your comment on my site..

Some of the things he has said may have seemed sexist, but I am certain some of the things Hillary and Bill said could be considered code words for racism. Especially Hillary's most recent pronouncement that Obama can't win because hardworking white Americans won't vote for him. I am not sure who that insults more - those who do support Obama (are they not hard working?) or the white voters themselves that she is assuming would never support Obama if she were out of the running.

Code words? C'mon, this is ridiculous! When Hillary made that comment about Obama not being able to get the votes of white hardworking Americans, she was talking about the rural white Americans, those whose support he's been losing in the latest polls. Why is it when the media says that Obama is winning 98% of the black vote, that is ok. But when they mention Hillary is winning the white vote...that's racist. Why is it when Michelle Obama said that "black people are finally 'getting it'" regarding the rise in black support for Obama, that was not racist? Honestly, then you tell me about code words?

I think one way this primary fight with Hillary Clinton has been good for Obama is that it has called his attention to the need to try to appeal to those white blue collar voters that you are mentioning. He may have started out thinking he didn't need them but he knows he does now and will make more effort to reach them, no doubt.

And why do you think he didn't think he needed to appeal to white, blue collar workers to begin with? Because he didn't think he needed them to win. Now all of the sudden he gives a rats ass? Kind of shallow, don't you think? In the meantime, Hillary and Bill had been working for the rights of the AA community their entire careers...even when they were in college. They didn't do it as an afterthought, but the way Obama and the black community talk, they had a closet full of hooded white sheets.

The reason her win in Indiana didn't convince people she had the momentum is because it was so narrow - and after her success in Pennsylvania and Obama's problems with Wright in the meantime, I think people would have expected her to have a big win in Indiana, which has a lot of those white blue collar types she is supposed to do well with. When she didn't, it indicated Obama had not been fatally wounded by the Wright controversy.

The real shame is those in the AA Community and Obama's supporters who feel comfortable that Obama called Wright his mentor at one point, and when it was politically damaging, he threw him under the bus.

I don't think Obama is misogynistic, at least no more so than most men. I don't think his wife would be with him if he were; she's a pretty "liberated" woman, an attorney; she wouldn't put up with a husband who was anti-woman. I believe his voting record is just as good as Hillary's in regard to women's rights.

Show me his votes on women's rights and lets compare them to Hillary's. Tell me what man respects a woman by making remarks about "taking out her claws" and giving her the finger at a rally, like a juvenile school boy does to his teacher in class. Yeah...the guy is a gem.


And I still feel Obama is trying to do something new and different, and I like that. I have to believe that or else I'd be too depressed to vote!


Obama isn't doing anything new or different, he's playing you guys like a fiddle, and yes...I do know a lot about him and how little he did for those in Illinois, especially the black community from his district where he allowed Rezko to keep them in unbelievable conditions without heat for 6 months while he took thousands of dollars from Rezko for campaign money.

Have to run...time to pick up my son from school.

Tom Harper said...

Hillary probably thinks that if she loses the nomination this year, McCain will get elected and she can waltz right in and become president in 2012. I don't think it'll happen.

There seems to be an unwritten rule that if somebody runs for president and doesn't get elected, that's the end. If they didn't get elected that first time, they won't get elected, period. Richard Nixon is the only exception I can think of.

Maybe Billary are aware of this and that could be why they're clinging so desperately in this battle.

Mauigirl said...

Tom, that may be her Plan B since she knows she didn't win this time. I know what you mean about not winning the second time if you lost the first time - but am wondering if that counts in primaries. For instance, if Obama lost to McCain in November, he'd be the one who's out of the picture for the 2012 election since he would have lost a general election. Hillary, on the other hand, might have a chance to try again, especially if people felt McCain was going to be too old for a second term. Who knows...a lot can change in four years and she may be doing something else by then. She might be in a Cabinet position perhaps...