  |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Hillary Has a ChoicePosted on May 12, 2008By E.J. Dionne WASHINGTON—Hillary Clinton still has a lot to win this year, but not the presidency and not the vice presidency. With Barack Obama having effectively secured the Democratic presidential nomination, it is hard for the Clinton camp to focus on her successes in this contest. But Clinton now possesses strengths she did not enjoy when the campaign began. She is, more than ever before, her own person, having emerged decisively from the shadow of her husband. Indeed, she did far better when Bill Clinton played a supporting role than when he was out front, notably during the disastrous South Carolina primary. There is now a Hillary Clinton constituency in the Democratic Party distinct from the one the former president built. Cartoonists and satirists mocked Hillary Clinton’s incarnation as a fighter for blue-collar voters. Yet those who know her well think the fighting Hillary is closer to her self-image—as someone who has had to overcome many blows in life—than the inevitable nominee who wove a web of entitlement around herself and ran on experience, much of which was derivative of her husband’s. The Hillary Clinton of the late primaries dispelled this portrait, campaigning more on empathy than résumé, and more on the problems of today’s economy than on her husband’s economic achievements. And Clinton did her party and Obama a favor by focusing on the Democrats’ potential weaknesses among blue-collar whites. This problem is not unique to Obama. Both Al Gore and John Kerry underperformed with these voters, particularly among males. That Obama has been pushed off his oratorical pedestal and encouraged to connect with disaffected whites will save him trouble in the fall. Clinton, widely seen as the champion of older, well-educated feminist women, could be remembered as the politician who brought the party back to its working-class roots. Yet these achievements have come at a high cost for Clinton, and a $20-million debt may be the least of her troubles. To consolidate her gains while repairing the damage to her standing from a bitter contest, she will have to abandon efforts to block Obama’s nomination. She can keep fighting, or she can become a powerful figure in the Democratic Party. She cannot do both. In particular, where Clinton was once a largely unifying force within her party (that, after all, was why her nomination had been seen as inevitable), she is now far more divisive. Polling by the Pew Research Center, for example, found that while Clinton enjoyed a 67-32 favorable-to-unfavorable ratio among Obama supporters in January, she is now viewed favorably by only 51 percent of Obama supporters and unfavorably by 46 percent. Especially striking is the ground Clinton has lost among African-Americans, whom she once saw as a bulwark of her candidacy. In August 2007, Pew found that Clinton was viewed favorably by 86 percent of African-Americans, including 44 percent who viewed her very favorably. In its most recent survey, her favorability rating among African-Americans was down to 56 percent, including only 22 percent who viewed her very favorably. For both Clintons, one of the most painful aspects of this campaign has been their alienation from so many black voters. Any moves that risk further divisions in the Democratic Party—Hillary Clinton’s comment last week about Obama’s weakness among voters who are “hardworking” and “white” didn’t help—will aggravate a problem she wants to go away. So would an orchestrated campaign by Clinton supporters to push Obama hard to make her the vice presidential nominee. An aggressive “Clinton for vice president” campaign would simply reopen fights that are just ending and offer Obama two bad choices: either to look weak by capitulating to pressure from the defeated wing of the party or to look spiteful by refusing to take Clinton on. On the other hand, choosing a Clinton supporter as a running mate—the obvious possibilities are Govs. Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania and Ted Strickland of Ohio or Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana—could serve Obama’s interest while assuaging a certain sourness that lingers in the Clinton camp.
But the best antidote to this melancholy is for her supporters to see that the Hillary Clinton who has emerged from these primaries is a stronger and more independent figure than the candidate who once hoped she could parlay the past into the White House. Her future depends on discovering a new role, even if it is not the one she had originally hoped to play.
Previous item: A Farewell to the 'Hillary Nutcracker' and Other Obscenities Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment |
|
Washington’s Overrated ‘Old Hands’
Email
Print
Share
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Ma.gnolia
Newsvine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Yahoo
Jump to Comments
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved.
By conservative Yankee, May 16 at 9:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“But since you have said 7500 I challenge you to come up with that number or shut your yapper. Which “war?” How many each?”
You may talk to your mother like that, and maybe she will answer you. You may not expect any reply from me.
Report thisBy AJ Franklin, May 16 at 6:55 am #
Which part of your anatomy did you pull a figure of 7500 out of? In which “war” was that, since there was no war, but NATO actions in which we participated with the other nations in NATO.
But since you have said 7500 I challenge you to come up with that number or shut your yapper. Which “war?” How many each?
People like you think you can put down a lot of non-facts on a duplicate posting and that will make them true. Well it doesn’t work that way. You only make a fool out of yourself.
Report thisBy AJ Franklin, May 16 at 6:44 am #
A silly name-calling reply from a bot with with no name? Ouch. That really hurts!
Report thisBy Frank Cajon, May 15 at 9:05 pm #
Interesting article. What puzzles me is the assumption that Billary is done, or that she in some far off galaxy would be a running mate from hell for Obama. Buzz, wrong answer.
Report thisShe is still in it because she knows this is going to be a BROKERED nomination. Obama will not have enough delegates going in to secure the nomination, so he is screwed, people. His lead in primary wins, popular vote, delegates, makes no difference; his certain electability advantage over Clinton II and obvious advantages as a better candidate make no damn difference whatsoever. He is going to get the traditional Republicrat shaft in Denver. The superdelegates are going to sacrifice him on the Gene McCarthy memorial altar. Dean and his henchmen are saying all the buzzwords now but the plan is to corrupt yet another convention and do 1968 again. Bubba has been raising money at rubber chicken dinners for 16 years for these folks and Billary would be out on her ass by now unless it was already a done deal that she had it in the bag. The people have spoken, and again will be ignored. I know that it may sound like a broken record, but this is the traditional Democratic way-find a way to lose. Obama is an outsider and dangerous, he doesn’t play by the old boy’s club rules, and worst of all, the power Democrats are more afraid of his color than the Republicans. He will be betrayed. The next president will be McCain, and when it is over, the Republicrats will be able to look back on it the way they did after 2004 and blew an election that could not be lost.
By Copnservative Yankee, May 15 at 5:05 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
First and foremost, I am NOT an Obama supporter, but I do like my history recorded in a factual manner.
7500 troops died during Clinton’s eight years in office
In September 1994, President Clinton sent 20000 American troops to Haiti.
Clinton sent troops to Bosnia
Clinton sent troops to Kosovo
Clinton sent troops to Somalia
Clinton sent troops to Iraq.
In the first year of the Clinton’s “peaceful” presidency, Fundamentalist Muslims Blew up a truck in the World Trade Center’s underground garage killing 6 and injuring over 1000 more.
His cruel enforcement of the “no fly zone” over Iraq caused the deaths of 250,000 Iraqis, most of them children.
A rather Orwellian “peace” don’t you think?
Finally your use of the word “uppity” is reminiscent of other Democrats, namely George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and sheriff Bull Connor. You may not see the word as “racist” but those of us who suffered through those times when it was often embarrassing to be Caucasian, it is just as racist as “rag head” or “know your place”
Vote for whom you wish, but folks like you are pushing some of us to cast our vote based on actions of 50 years ago, rather than the issues of today.
Report thisBy Copnservative Yankee, May 15 at 4:28 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
First and foremost, I am NOT an Obama supporter, but I do like my history recorded in a factual manner.
7500 troops died during Clinton’s eight years in office
In September 1994, President Clinton sent 20000 American troops to Haiti.
Clinton sent troops to Bosnia
Clinton sent troops to Kosovo
Clinton sent troops to Somalia
Clinton sent troops to Iraq.
In the first year of the Clinton’s “peaceful” presidency, Fundamentalist Muslims Blew up a truck in the World Trade Center’s underground garage killing 6 and injuring over 1000 more.
His cruel enforcement of the “no fly zone” over Iraq caused the deaths of 250,000 Iraqis, most of them children.
A rather Orwellian “peace” don’t you think?
Finally your use of the word “uppity” is reminiscent of other Democrats, namely George Wallace, Lester Maddox, and sheriff Bull Connor. You may not see the word as “racist” but those of us who suffered through those times when it was often embarrassing to be Caucasian, it is just as racist as “rag head” or “know your place”
Vote for whom you wish, but folks like you are pushing some of us to cast our vote based on actions of 50 years ago, rather than the issues of today…
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 14 at 1:07 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
from ‘32 to 92? That would be Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and Bush I.
I absolutely KNOW that some of the folks out there must be getting the same laugh out of this revisionist history as I.
Roosevelt saved the world for capitalists, refused to sign anti-lynching legislation, tried to pack the supreme court, and failed to disavow the KKK connected senators from the old south.
Truman began busting unions as soon as he entered the white House, although he claimed publicly to dislike Taft-Hartley, he used it 19 times, more than any other President. He started us on the down-hill path of unwinable wars in Korea, not to mention incinerating the Cities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima… that’s civilian men, women and children. I’m sure all the “liberals” were immensely proud of that.
Eisenhower did nothing for eight years when nothing was exactly what we needed, BUT Ike would bristle at being called a “liberal” When he was leaving office he was asked if he made any mistakes… he replied “yes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.” He was speaking of Earl Warren, and William Brennan, arguably two of the most liberal judges in the court’s history.
Kennedy stole the 1960 election in Illinois as surly as Bush did in Florida, He reappointed Hoover at the FBI, appointed Byron “wizzer” White as his only supreme court justice, was the architect of the “Cuban policy” came closest to incinerating the world with his typical Kennedysque brinkmanship. and failed to do much for the suffering African Americans in the South.
Johnson escalated the Vietnam conflict to a full fledged shooting war by lying about the Tonkin Gulf incident. his relationship with Bobby Baker was Bush-like, and his social programs at home were mostly (excluding head start) an abysmal failure. Shall we talk about Newark, Watts, and Gary??
Nixon...oh shit, where do I start… Crook, cold warrior, genocidal maniac whose only saving grace was that he was the only President in the “LIBERAL"time frame to do a single good dead for our indigenous people.
Ford aided Suharto in eliminating a quarter of a million people on the Island of East Timur. He was assisted in this effort by his successor Jimmy “all we need is love” Carter, Then we get to the “real heart of the “liberal era’ Ronald Wilson Reagan who came into office firing the air traffic controllers, and left eight years later as his “liberal” secretary of the interior James Watt burned Yellowstone (and several neighboring ranches) almost to a cinder.
We’ve never had a “liberal” president. The man who came closest was Teddy Roosevelt a die-hard blue-blood Republican, and even he had a strong conservative bent.
Report thisBy AJ Franklin, May 14 at 12:44 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
He may get the nod from Dr. Dean, but most Hillary supporters, including me, have seen the vulgar, ignorant, abominable, reckless attacks by Obamabots on Hillary. You have insulted the last important and successful Democrat in the White House, Bill Clinton, with a record for the longest peacetime economic expansion in the history of the country and no American killed in a war...I would rather see McWar deliver four more years of the devil we know than put up with the arrogance, of you uppity Obamabots for 4 more years. I am one of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who support Hillary Clinton, who will either not vote at all, or support John McCain. You can carry the broken pieces of your boy home after the election in a handbasket: he will be that badly beaten in the fall.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, May 14 at 11:27 am #
I may have been misunderstood in my post I equate liberal with good.That we have allowed the Republicans to assign evil to liberal is something we should all be ashamed of.When I said he was the most liberal member of the Senate to me it is the reason he should President.As I recall when liberals ran the American world from ‘32 through ‘92 with some exceptions we were all much prouder to be Americans.
Report thisBy Lee, May 14 at 10:02 am #
Evillive,
Thank you for proving my point!
Report thisYou are one of the contentious sarcastic Obama supporters I was referring to in my post. All you people can do is resort to insults and accusations of racism ... but, in November your stubborn allegiance to Obama will land McCain the Presidency. Obama should step aside and let Hillary win the Presidency for the Democratic party. Obama’s hollow lead is based upon caucus wins, which are meaningless in the general election ... as well as a lack of support from the essential ‘white blue collar’ voters ... as well as the missing support of both Michigan and Florida ... all of which reflect a majority of the popular vote for Hilary Clinton.
By Rick, May 14 at 8:26 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
She just got elected as queen of the redneck hillbillies
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 14 at 8:07 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maani says:
“So, ironically, whatever you say about Hillary’s voting record is as true for Obama as it is for her.”
I agree.. they’re both shit… which is why we will have a new Republican administration in the fall.
William Safire once opined: “ You can’t beat somebody with Nobody.”
Report thisBy Lee, May 14 at 7:38 am #
Have you noticed how Obama supporters lack civility. If you disagree with them, they respond with contentious sarcastic remarks, or accusations of racism. The ultimate objective of the Democratic party should be to win the general election in November, but their misguided focus on being politically correct will probably lose them the Presidency ... again. West Virginia has once again shown that Obama is too weak to win the ‘white blue collar’ voters, so the super delegates should choose Hillary Clinton ... after all, that’s what the super delegates are there for ... to pick the candidate who has the best chance of winning the general election. In addition, with Michigan and Florida, Hillary most likely wins the democratic popular vote. Super delegate ... don’t win the battle and lose the war ... switch your vote to Hillary Clinton!
Report thisBy JoeJ, May 14 at 7:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Dear HG: Please - cool down and think. Do you really want to see two (maybe even three) more Scalias, Alitos and Thomases on the Supreme Court? Those of us who favored Hillary from the start need to accept the verdict of the primaries and caucuses, swallow our disappointment and do everything we can - donate, work and vote - to make sure we get a Democratic president and larger margins in both House and Senate, especially in the Senate. Our country has been dragged backward and downward in so many ways during the past eight years and we can’t let the GOP keep on doing its damage simply because they nominated a former POW who has a nice smile and thinks he can straddle the gap between ultra-conservatives and independents.
Report thisBy isingbecausei'mhappy, May 14 at 7:14 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
EJD and every single writer, talker and subjective Hillary supporter need to understand the supreme insult you are guilty of shoving in the face of sane and sober American voters.
If you never suffered, knew a sufferer or properly regarded the humanity of those who endured the terrorism of the Dixiecrats that Mr. and Mrs. KKKlinton continue to resurrect and so zealously attempt to “return” the Party to in the name of ‘hard working White people’ I can understand your sensuous curiosity for a sequel. However, such comments can easily be construed as expressions sympathetic to a very hateful, backwards, un-american and destructive worldview. No light matter. We’ve clearly opted for the opportunity to go forward. The obliterating KKKlintons do not have to go with us.
As to the commentor who threatens to not vote for President Obama unless Mr. and Mrs. KKKlinton are on the ballot with him, you and those who think like you are the real “What’s Wrong” with our country. Our dollar declines.
Anyone trying to make respectable room for the Kkklintons in polite company should picture yourself at the nearest Children’s hospital, talking the parents of recovering patients into letting you feed their children rancid meat, relpete with maggots and foul odor.
EJ, you are forgiven and forewarned. Away with the poison.
Lastly, what have we learned class?
One probable answer: Being KKKLINTON, White and possessing a vagina are not in and of themselves attributes that shout “Vote For Me” convincingly enough to a large enough number of today’s American voters who understand how we really got in the mess we’re in. Bubba and Dubya tapped us out. The high school grads among us remember from grade ‘K’ that we are supposed to share planet earth with other human beings.
The Repubs are however, still casting votes to drown our government in a bathtub and use the constitution for toilet paper. Fear, Smear, Yearnin fer Zion, and fresh young White virgins fer ol perverted White men for Mister, and just think how good it will feel to be authentic again Mrs. Goldwater girl. Take your place among the hard working back to dixie confederates. Go Repub and take Joe Lieberman with y’all.
There is no humor in the KKKlinton’s political science lesson; Only embarrassing truth of what bad doctrine produces. Sick children, some of whom grow up to become politicians and pundits.
Report thisBy klynnrn, May 14 at 5:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Sour Grapes???????????
Report thisBy klynnrn, May 14 at 5:33 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I too have been sorely disappointed by the Clinton campaign, esp Hillary herself! What happened to that progressive First-Lady that I respected so much. She has changed her stump so many times she could be diagnosed with Multiple Personality Disorder but we all know that this is the politics as usual that the Clintons use in spades! She has relagated herself to going after the Reagan Dems to use as part of her coalition to prove her electibility argument but we all know that these blue-collar whites will vote Republican in the Fall just as they always do. Obama has the stronger coalition and it proves his greater electibility as evidenced by the current national polls against McCain. I am all for Clinton finishing out this race if just to prove to her supporters that she lost fair & square so that we can be unified at the Convention!
Report thisBy Maesti, May 14 at 4:39 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I will never vote for HRC. I am an educated independent thinking woman - and as much as I would love to see a female president she is not the one I want to see.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 14 at 4:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
OBAMA the most “liberal” Senator?? hummm let’s see…
When Bush ran against Dukakis, Dukakis became “The most liberal governor in Massachusetts history. I knew this was untrue as Frank Sargent, A Republican held that distinction. To be the most liberal Governor in Massachusetts’ history one must also pass Endicott Peabody who signed a resolution prohibiting Massachusetts citizens from serving in the “undeclared Vietnam action”.
When Bill Clinton ran against Bush in 92, He was labeled by the lap-dog media “The most liberal governor in the Nation”. I knew that wasn’t so, Bill’s right to work laws, his cozy relationship with Tyson and Walmart, coupled with the fact that Arkansas was never a particularly “liberal” State made me doubtful of the media’s claim for this three-term governor.
My biggest laugh was the Kerry-Bush dust-up of 2004. The media pundits hawked the Republican line that Kerry was the most liberal Senator, even going so far as to say that Ted Kennedy was the more conservative Massachusetts Senator.
So, please don’t attempt to sell me this soap again… It’s old tired, and worn-out.... not to mention patently false!
Report thisBy jackpine savage, May 14 at 4:08 am #
I’m with you, felicity. I’ve taken time this primary season to read a good many books on the Clinton years, and i’ve come to the same conclusion as you. But most Americans don’t read books; they’re going on their memory of the 90’s and the Clintons. Fool me once....
Report thisBy cyrena, May 14 at 12:44 am #
Felicity,
Thanks for this assessment. I’ve not had time to read anything that’s been written on either one of them in the past few years, so I appreciate your take from your own reading.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 14 at 12:42 am #
Oh well…
Report thisBy KYJurisDoctor, May 13 at 7:52 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Hillary’s choice should be to fade into the sunset—with her race baiting husband, BUBBA—and NOT be heard from again, politically speaking.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 13 at 7:42 pm #
Evilive
I haven’t heard any ‘crap’ from you. To the contrary, I’ve been very enlightened by them. (The ones that have come through). Matter of fact, you provided a ‘prompt’ for me, for a difficult paper that I’m trying to work, even though it may seem like the most simple of concepts.
“Reality really IS the only hope.” So thanks for that.
Meantime, just so you won’t worry a whole lot about it, I’ve noticed some issues with the site, just since yesterday, so I suspect that it may not be on your end, or even your comments. (quite honestly, Truthdig doesn’t appear to do any serious ‘screening’ in my own opinion).
Still, I’ve noticed that I’m encountering some unusual technical oddities on some of the threads myself. For instance, even though I’m logged in as usual, I still get the interface that requests either a registration, or the format that allows a non-registered member to post.
There’s that stuff that is supposed to required that one type in the letters or numbers displayed in a box, (to prove they are human) except that the numbers/letters don’t display.
So, I could on the one hand, assume that it was an issue with my own system, but since that is not the case on all of the threads, I’m going to figure that the malfunction is with the site system, and therefore may eventually be corrected.
That is of course just an assumption on my part. Still, hang in there, since at least some of your posts are coming through, and are appreciated. (at least by me)
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, May 13 at 4:55 pm #
Dear Maani that 6 percent voting difference made Obama the most liberal member of the Senate.I am going to check when I am done but I do not think Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill Hillary did.How could Obama from Illinois be the most liberal in the Senate when Hillary hails from the very liberal New York.You seem to beleive that the 6 percent difference is negligible I disagree.Let me repeat that 6 percent difference made him the most liberal voting member of the Senate.What was Hillary’s rank?
Report thisBy HG, May 13 at 4:42 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I won’t vote for Barak without a woman on the ticket. And that woman has to be Ms. Clinton.
Report thisBy troublesum, May 13 at 3:46 pm #
It is sexist when women don’t react to Clinton’s threats of nuclear annihilation. Apparently there’s nothing wrong with obliterating an entire nation as long as it’s a woman pushing the button.
Report thisBy JimM, May 13 at 3:32 pm #
When she publicly stated that McCain was more qualified to be president than Barack.
Report thisThere is nothing more that needs to be said about her
By felicity, May 13 at 1:27 pm #
Just finished a book on Rodham by Peggy Noonan, a self-described R. hater. Am reading a book by Mike Isakoff, Washington Post reporter, on Bill. Have read probably six books on the couple, some are complimentary, some neutral, some pejorative.
What comes through in each is the Clinton’s obsessive drive to power. That’s the right side of their equation. The components on the left side - ethics, morals, veracity… - will only be plugged into their equation if their inclusion will satisfy the right side of the equation.
If Rodham is president we can expect her drive to power to take precedent over anything that may benefit us or our country.
Report thisBy Tom Semioli, May 13 at 10:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
The fake senator from New York ran a worse campaign than Gore and Kerry combined!
Report thisBy heavyrunner, May 13 at 10:44 am #
Obama needs to pick a VP that provides him with a certain degree of safety. Someone that certain elements in our society would like in office even less than Obama when he starts to make progressive policy decisions.
I think it could be dangerous to have a neo-lib a heartbeat away from the Presidency.
Report thisBy Maani, May 13 at 9:20 am #
Thomas:
“EJ have you looked at Hillary’s voting record in the Senate. She could have run as a Republican.”
Once again the same canard. Yes, Hillary foolishly voted for the authorization of force in Iraq, but Obama was not in the Senate at that time. Once Obama arrived in the Senate, their voting records were IDENTICAL 94% of the time - ON EVERY POSSIBLE ISSUE. So, ironically, whatever you say about Hillary’s voting record is as true for Obama as it is for her.
You would be on firmer ground arguing a different tack.
Peace.
Report thisBy Purple Girl, May 13 at 8:09 am #
One need only see a list of those who are members of this Neo CON sabotage Unit called the ‘Democratic Leadership council” to understand WHY REAl Dems can’t tell the difference between some Republican and some Democrats. Because they are all Corp sponsored Religious extremeist commonly referred to as Neo CONS. having been a Loyal Voting Dem I could not understand what was happening to my parties basic Values- Worker rights, human rights, diplomacy over military action...I would have to wait for the name to pop up under them on CSPAN to figure out which party they CLAIMED to be. The Undermining of the Old Republican party was so Obvious during Reagan, I missed the usurping of the Democratic Party by the inception of the DLC in (Appropo) 1984!
Report thisIt’s not the Dem party was Weaken by the Neo Cons- they had been working covertly in Our Midst. Hillary is NOT Regretting her Iraq Vote,. Nor NAFTA, Nor the gutting of Roe v Wade...They are part of her guiding Doctrine ‘Totally Obliterate Iran with Nukes to defend Isreal (has their Own),the Saudis ( most 9/11 Highjackers and again Hoarding Oil ) and the UAE (must be where they all have their escape Bunkers if discovered to be Criminals).Funny she made not even a mild reference to use such extreme tactics if WE were Attacked!Hillary has not only revealed MUCH about herself, and Bills Presidency, but has Exposed the sociopaths afflitated with the DLC and the ‘spiritual’ advisors like Hagee & Parsley.Their Agenda and Their Stratedgy have had the Curtain Pulled Back for all of US to SEE.Cheney is not th eonly one who likes to work in the Shadows proliferating Treason,War Crimes and Crimes agaisnt Humanity. He has Proteges wearing Red & BLUE!
By Jonas South, May 13 at 6:33 am #
Dionne: ‘Clinton .....could be remembered as the politician who brought the party back to its working-class roots.’
That may be the effect of her actions, but it would be an unintended effect. Instead of appealing to the working class of all colors, she tried to drive a wedge between ‘hard working whites’ and black Obama, and largely succeeded.
Obama’s appeal to ‘change we can believe in’ would be ever so much more convincing if the Clintons would just go away quietly. They represent the old failed neo-liberalism at its worse.
Evan Bayh for VP? C’mon E.J., your neo-lib roots are showing. Go away you too, who don’t you: we don’t need no triangulation no more.
Report thisBy Expat, May 13 at 6:02 am #
^ “leader” we can all follow; Ms. everybody who is whom?
Report thisBy Jim Yell, May 13 at 5:31 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
I can’t see any difference between the politics of Hillary and the politics of Bush. When people talk about her being vice-President I get cold chills, as I suppose Obama should too.
Her health care for everyone is like the Bush medical RX plan, not for the public, but to preserve the huge unearned income from providing health care by the private sector. It is a fraud. Perhaps she really was a progressive as First Lady, but since then she has taken huge amounts of money from the insurance and health industry, which should make people follow the money, before embracing her as the agent of future leadership. She is following the pattern set by her husband and even though his competence was monumental beside the greed and ignorance of the Bush/Cheney Whitehouse, he still helped facilitate the rise of this self appointed elitism. No Clintons in the Whitehouse.
Report thisBy Frikken Kids, May 13 at 4:20 am #
This piece lost me at the third paragraph.
“She is, more than ever before, her own person...”
Not only did she become her own person, she became everybody’s person. No matter who she’s talking to, she says exactly what she thinks she needs to say to get that person’s support even if she said the exact opposite just moments before and even if her current position is ridiculous.
Report thisBy Conservative Yankee, May 13 at 4:09 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Powerful Democrats in my life have been folks like Tip O’Neil, Sam Rayburn, Bill Proxmire, and George Mitchell. To my knowledge none of these folks ever ran for president.
Hill-the-business-shill is a self absorbed seeker of power and wealth. The “hard times” E.J. refers to must have been the situations where she broke a nail, or misplaced her car keys. When did she have to choose between eating steak and sending her daughter to college? When did she see all the family furniture placed on the front lawn by the local sheriff? When did she walk the streets going from office to office trying to get a job? walking, because there was no money for gas.
I know people who have been through “hard times” the corporate whore running for president doesn’t come near qualifying for that club.
E.J. also left out one more choice for this person consummed with her own self importance;
She could benignly deep six Obama’s campaign assuring a Republican win in the fall, which would make her wait for act II much shorter.
Report thisBy cyrena, May 13 at 12:38 am #
I’m with Thomas Billis. What new role? Not as a democrat.
And SURELY not as a VP on Obama’s ticket. Nope. She can hope that the good people of New York take her back as their Senator, and try not to screw up anything else between now and her retirement from the political scene entirely.
We haven’t been ignoring HRC you know. I was really glad when she became a Senator from NY,because I didn’t see how she could do all that much damage as one person, and I actually thought she could be very helpful to the process. But that was before I knew she was perfectly willing to engage in everlasting war.
What IS it about Americans who love these war mongers and corporatists? What do we REALLY have to show for the past 3 decades besides DECLINE?
Yeah, we’ve got these nifty computers, and I’m really grateful for that. Seriously..I am. (HRC didn’t have anything to do with that though)
So...what else? Somebody throw me some ‘prompts’ here.
Report thisBy Thomas Billis, May 12 at 10:25 pm #
EJ have you looked at Hillary’s voting record in the Senate.She could have run as a Republican.A Rockefeller republican but as a republican.The only Democrat left is Obama.That is why he is winning in democratic primaries.The pundocracy keeps coming up with ridiculous scenarios why Clinton is losing.EJ check out her voting record on issues that are close to Democrats.Unless she becomes a real democrat her furure is going to be shit.
Report this