Well, yeah, but that wasn’t the “crisis” of Tuesday-- that’s how she’s been all along. But also keep in mind that as long as she was still running, she had to keep her staff energized. As soon as they think she’s given up, they’re outta there. You have to be all in in this game, and it was a very tight race up until the end. She may very well have been right that she’s a stronger candidate in Nov than Obama. I don’t care much for her, but she runs well in some key states.
In other words she hasn’t given up and still believes she could be the nominee. Forget about the fact that yeah, it could happen for a sec. I guess I’m dense so maybe I’m missing it, but how does this act benefit the current presumptive nominee? How does this, in any way, dismiss the notion that she is, in fact, contrary to others’ assessments, still running for the nomination?
I confess, I’m slightly torn. One of the pundits said that they believe that Clinton really believes in her heart of hearts, that she is the better candidate. So despite the clumsy way she’s been doing it, she’s trying to save the nation from a McCain victory.
I don’t know what mental gymnastics you have to go through not to realize that by screwing with Obama’s momentum, you’ll will be helping McCain win…or that somehow you’re going to pull this from him in Denver.
Does she think the country can survive the 4 years till she gets to run again? That if she’s seen as a spoiler, she’d even get the chance to run again?
It’s an interesting look at her mind and motivations; if it’s true.
This is what I don’t get. How did the better candidate get beaten by someone not as good? Shouldn’t the better candidate have won? …or is she accusing Obama of underhanded methods or, as many of her supporters are saying, stealing the nomination from her?
I’m thinking she figures she has nothing to lose and at least the very slightest chance of everything to gain by keeping her candidacy technically alive. Unlike some of us here, it may be that she feels this is her only shot at the presidency and so she’s gonna go the distance thinking that if ‘something’ were to happen to Obama, or if he should make some disastrous gaffe, or if something in his background or personal history should arise to threaten or end his candidacy, she will be in position to claim the nomination.
How on earth this woman thinks she can be elected even if she gains the nomination is an utter mystery to me. Republicans hate, loathe and despise her (a fair number of democrats do too) and will turn out in unprecedented numbers to vote against her and she was able to marshall only about half the votes from voters in her own party. She’s exposed herself as a blatant liar. Nobody has the vaguest idea what she’d actually try to accomplish as president as she’s told so many different things to so many different people. She’s shown herself to be a poor manager and leader (i.e., executive) in the running of her own campaign. And now she’s exposing herself to be what many of us have believed for a long time - someone who’s far more concerned with her own ambitions than the good of her party and/or what it could accomplish with a Democrat other than her in office.
If that’s true then I can’t dredge up much sympathy. It’s an extremely egotistical mindset that ignores the democratic process. Especially given the fact that their platforms are so similar.
That’s the way I see it. Clinton believes that Obama can’t beat McCain and she can. So in her mind she’s been fighting for the only chance at a Democratic victory.
And the thing is, she might be partly right. I don’t agree with her that Obama has no chance. But I think a realistic objective look at poll numbers will show that Clinton had a better chance at getting 270 electoral votes in November than Obama has.
No, I think and I don’t know, but that Obama won by a technicality, that is nomination isn’t really valid. Not that he cheated per se, but that there was a ‘loophole’, that allowed him to win.
I know it’s not logical and because of their doublespeak, not honest; but I think if you’re desperate to find a reason why the public made a mistake and didn’t nominate you, the rules of the Democratic Party allow for a lot of rationalization.
Even if you agreed to them before you lost.
The better candidate in Nov. Remember when Lieberman got beaten by Lamont in the primary, then went on to win as an independent in the general? Which was the better candidate?
You see, I don’t agree with that. I believe that having any Clinton on the ballot, will pull the lack-luster Repubs out in droves. If her behaviour in this primary has managed to turn Democrats against her, I have no doubt the repubs will actual manage to energize their base against her.
I think Obama doesn’t inspire that much of sheer hatred as she does and that’s what’s going to push him through; where I think it would have tied her up.
It’s just such a crying shame that she has no sense of anything outside herself. Even **John Mace ** can defend her only on the basis of her doing what’s best for herself. Like some of her former supporters have said, she has blown the chance to be a key player in the most monumentally significant election of the modern age. She could have been a leader, marshalling her supporters to join in making history. But as it is, she has become an embarassment to her own party leadership and has lost possibly forever the famous black voting block that she and her husband rode to power. She’s now nothing more than a nuisance that Obama will have to make plans basically to avoid. She has been mathematically dead for a long time, but her pride, ego, and greed overwhelmed her. She’s become a laughingstock. Something to puzzle over and pity. Her place in history will be as the kook who nearly ruined her party at a time when it was trying to shine. I say “nearly” because at some point, even her own supporters will come to their senses and abandon her. God, just the image of Congress begging her to behave like a civilized human being will haunt her for the rest of her days. The only ones left defending her will be the right wing because of her heroic efforts to get their guy elected. I’m just about worn out with her.
ETA:
John, your defense of her wouldn’t ring quite so hollow if it weren’t in such stark contrast to the criticisms from Rendell, Rankel, Rosen, and others. They know what they’re talking about.
Liberal hit the nail on the head. That email is only fodder for her supporters.
I’m the one who stands up for you.
I’m the one battled for you.
I support Obama, because he isn’t McCain
i support Obama because I promised I would.
On Saturday I better hear something like this out of her mouth:
“I give my fullest endorsement to Senator Obama and I encourage every one of my supporters to support him with the same vigor that they have backed me. Obama is a fantastic nominee for the Democrats and I personally am looking forward immensely to this country returning back to being the greate nation we know we are behind his leadership when he wins the nomination in November. Yes WE can. All of us together.”
I was watching MSNBC last night when these various announcements were made and news reports broadcast. (By the way, has MSNBC always been the Dem equivalent of FOX News, or is that recent?) The thinking is that HRC would possibly like to get nominated on the floor in Denver, even though she’s fully aware that she cannot win, so as to show that a woman can and did get nominated for President by a major party, and she was that woman. Keith Olbermann found this plausible, folks, it’s not just me.
Look, I was irritated Tuesday night myself by her speech, but I’ve come to the conclusion that this was unjust. She and her loyalists are all saying that there is a right way to do this and a wrong way, and the right way is to bring as many of her supporters along with her as possible. This means easing her supporters through their grief and sense of loss and bringing them to see Obama as their best hope of decent government over the next few years. Further, it’s not so easy to just say “All over. Go home now.” to all the volunteers and especially employees working for her campaign. It’s been a large campaign, and the logistics are complex. She’s not screwing with Obama’s momentum; she’s taking a few days before she starts the long hard slog again, and this time without the prospect of winning the presidency herself to keep her going.
You all have been saying that Obama was the absolute winner for a couple of months now, but the fact is, this is the closest primary race in history. She had good reason to stick it out to the last primaries, and the end result bears this out - she won one of the last two states.
Obama hasn’t been in the least concerned about her actions, and as he points out, he’s just about the only person in the country who knows just how she’s feeling right now. Which above all is exhausted and a bit hurt - her congressional support melted very quickly what with everyone trying to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Nonetheless, she was very graceful and supportive of Obama at the AIPAC speech yesterday.
You want a personification of EVIL? Look to W, Cheney and Rove. You want a relevant personification of EVIL? There’s McCain waiting for us all to villify, and he deserves it.
HRC can be a real asset this fall, and in the coming administration (I like the idea of Attorney General - that would have some nasty folks shaking in their shoes!). Unless the idea of finding new and imaginary villainies to attribute to her appeals to you more than winning (and at this point you have me wondering), how about spending your time and energy finding ways to use her to beat McCain, the *real * enemy!
I am really sick of talking about and thinking about her. I really do think that on Saturday she’s going to say she’s fully supporting Obama. Whether she technically “suspends” or ends her campaign, I don’t give a shit. It’s over. I just feel exhausted by it all.
I think most people were surprised when Lamont won, so when Holy Joe came back and won the general, although disappointing, it wasn’t really a shock, at least not to me.
The Clinton situation is a different animal. On what evidence does Hillary base her strength and electability over Obama in the GE? She didn’t run a better campaign, she wasn’t as organized, she wasn’t as prepared, and as the primaries continued into March she resorted to a desparate strategy of Rovian tactics in an attempt to tear Obama down. Even if you discount the primaries, what successes can one point to as indication that she’d be a stronger candidate? Name recognition only takes you so far, and tenacity is wildly overrated. In addition, she’s polarizing and the republican base absolutely despises her. So I’d really like to know where the idea that she’s the stronger candidate comes from.
It’s the same logic used by Bush – say it often enough and hope that people will start to believe it.
I agree with several of your points, Oy!, but I’ll quibble over a couple:
It was very close, true. But say there are two guys running a marathon, and they’re within 50 feet of each other. That’s a close race- but if one guy is ahead by 50 feet when they’re 20 feet from the finish line, it’s obvious who is going to win.
She would have to be pretty clueless (which I don’t believe) to think the results from either state would make any difference. I never said she should quit, but the South Dakota primary didn’t exactly prove she was close to winning. And she knew that; otherwise she wouldn’t have pretended that Montana didn’t exist.
Just for general interest I read this a few moments ago.
Demconwatch, yesterday.
- Switched Sen. Tim Johnson (SD) from Obama to Clinton
Yep, she got one.