I don’t agree that HRC could damp down all this nonsense if she wanted to. I don’t think there are very many people doing this. I think a lot of this “drama” is being manufactured by the media, and I suspect some of it is being, shall we say, encouraged by people who are not all that friendly towards the Democrats. The noise that is being made then energizes a few additional people who had been Clinton supporters settling into being Obama supporters. They’ll settle down again at or before the convention, when both Clintons get up and made very enthusiastic speeches. Then Ted Kennedy will make an appearance either in person or by video, symbolically handing the ‘Kennedy torch’ over to the new young charisma king, who will make a speech on the anniversary of Martin Luther King’s “I have a dream” speech, we Democrats will all be in tears, and everyone will go away happy. I’m making fun of it, but I really believe that’s how it’s going to go.
The largest part of it is what Clinton herself said about “voices being heard, yada, yada, yada” at the backyard fundraising that’s on video all over the internet.
Don’t you think she has responsibility for demanding that show of respect at the convention, roiling misplaced energy that would cause turmoil and creating the appearance of disunity in the party that can be played up by the Republicans?
I do think her accomplishment should and would have been acknowledged at the convention. I just don’t think it’s wise or accomplishes much to go to the extent that her already-apparent ego demands.
I don’t think she was egging them on in that film clip. I think she was saying “OK, so here’s what you’re feeling - do I have this right?”
Of course she has an active ego. No one runs for president without a pretty darned healthy one. But at this point she has nothing to gain and everything to lose by indulging it.
Indulging it too openly is bad. Less risky to pretend you’re just trying to acknowledge the “little people”, bask in the resulting attention, and let your surrogates keep the tensions roiling underneath the surface.
We all know the equation: Obama loses the election, Hillary wins.
I disagree again. Obama loses the equation, Hillary looks like the spoiler. Hillary loses.
I don’t think so. That might be how she thinks it will play out, but it’s never going to happen. There is a contingent of mainstream Dems that loves Hillary. However, there’s a larger contingent of Democrats and independents who are thoroughly sick of the Clintons and just want them to go away. Do you think those independents would flock to her the way they’re flocking to Obama? And while the Dems who don’t like her might vote for her, they’re not going to donate or volunteer for her.
I know some of you may find it hard to wrap your minds around the concept, but I think that both of the Clintons actually believe in the principles of the Democratic Party, and would be seriously unhappy to see it lose the White House or Congress this fall. Just a crazy idea on my part, I guess.
Well, ever since “I have a lifetime of experience to bring to the white house, Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the white house, And Senator Obama has a speech he made in 2002”, I’ve had my doubts about how much they care about the Democratic Party.
I think that was a mistake that she probably regrets now. People do overreach sometimes, even experienced politicians.
It would demonstrate the new, unifying atmosphere of hope and unity that Obama has brought to the spirit of the Democratic Party, and soon to all the nation, if it were couched in fewer such adolescent, misogynistic cracks. It at the very least would help the credibility of those making them, knowhamean?
Now: Can anybody here, of whatever persuasion, point to any time where a major candidate, with any significant amount of delegates won, has been denied a major speaking role at either party’s convention in recent memory? No, of course you can’t. They all do. It’s part of unifying the party behind a single nominee. It’s part of how the nominee unifies and energizes the party, all of it, to work for the common goal. It’s about the nominee being a leader. If Obama needed to be reminded of that, he shouldn’t have.
But the membership of the He-Man Woman Haters Club may simply prefer their own explanations.
What do I care? I’m not a Democrat, and I have reservations on Obama to say the least. I have had girlfriends like that, though, so I’m just calling 'em as I see 'em.
“As you see 'em”, yes - but that’s the point, innit?
I support Obama, but don’t give a dang what they do with the Clintons at the convention.
Hey, they let the silver and bronze medal winners stand on podiums alongside the gold medal winners; I don’t see much difference.
I’m sure Obama’s people are telling Clinton’s people not to even think about doing anything stupid at the convention, and I’m sure they won’t.
Slow news week, huh?
As I’m an undecided voter in the general election, and presumably someone your party wishes to persuade, yes, I 'd say that’s the point. If my perception is that the Democrats are blowing a golden opportunity to persuade me to jump ship to their party, and are instead making themselves look like disorganized fools held hostage by tiny but vocal interest groups, then wouldn’t you acknowledge that’s a problem?
And I’m 98% sure they never needed telling.
ETA: I’d be 99.9% sure if Bill didn’t have hurt feelings over the whole ‘racism’ business.
I think this is a stupid move on Clinton’s part. She’s not going to win the nomination by any normal means at this point; Obama has clearly passed the apparent electability hurtle by now.
So she only has two options. One is to wait on standby in case Obama has a big meltdown - something like finding out he’s the father of Reille Hunter’s baby. The other is to take the long term strategy and see if Obama really is electable. If he loses to McCain in November, there might be a strong movement in 2012 to pick a Democratic candidate who’ll go for the throat.
But the one thing Clinton can’t afford in either case is to look like she personally hurt Obama. She has to be seen as giving him full support and not being responsible if he falls.
Question: You think the dems are blowing a golden opportunity to persuade you to jump to their side by doing what exactly? They are not pandering to the likes of PUMA and other pacs. Not at all. I would hope you would base your decision who you cast your vote for on the quality of the candidate. In this case I’m quite happy to vote for Obama, in my opinion he’s the best candidate we have had in many years. I for one can’t wait to see what he can do when he’s in the oval office.
What’s a stupid move on Clinton’s part? She’s not doing anything except supporting Obama! The media, on the other hand, is having a grand old time selling commercials by giving airtime to a few hundred loud and bitter people, airing a single camcorder clip out of context, and having their pundits spend all the time they can spare from slavering over John Edwards’ sex life in speculating on what Hillary will do to destroy the Denver convention. Oh, and re- and re-playing a slightly less than overwhelming endorsement by Bill Clinton, who I will bet you anything will have a rousing endorsement speech (more focused on McCain than Obama, but that will be the theme of the entire convention) at the convention, and will be active on the campaign trail thereafter, regardless of how he feels about Obama personally.
This is a manufactured “controversy.”
Just breathing, apparently.
But one that a significant number even of Dopers are willing to embrace.
Well, those of you Dopers who are embracing it ought to start fighting your ignorance. I’m sorry to be so severe, but this is not coming from the Hillary Clinton herself, and she is not the embodiment of all evil. If you want to demonize someone, start with Dick Cheney - he fits the part much better.