So I go away for a few hours and the whole world changes?  Apparently Barack Obama has made a decisive move to fill out his cabinet and we are about to witness three appointments:  Tim Geithner at Treasury, Hillary Clinton at State, and Bill Richardson at Commerce.  All three come steeped in experience on Capitol Hill and the U.S. Government.  However, all three are fairly safe picks too.  Whether this is change we can believe in is only time will tell.  At a minimum, we know that Obama is going to make swift and reasoned if conventional decisions as President.

President-elect Barack Obama on Friday moved toward nominating Timothy Geithner as Treasury secretary and charging the respected head of the New York Federal Reserve with helping pull the United States out of an economic nosedive.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton appeared headed to be nominated as Obama’s secretary of state, bringing his one-time main Democratic rival into the fold in a pivotal role in his new administration.

Geithner, 47, had been seen as one of two main candidates for the Treasury job along with former Clinton administration Treasury chief Lawrence Summers.

U.S. stocks soared on the Geithner news, first reported by NBC News, pushing major indices up more than 6 percent. The Dow Jones industrial average closed above 8,000, an important psychological trading level.

Obama may consider Summers as a possible successor to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, whose term ends in January 2010, a Democratic source said.

Clinton, wife of former President Bill Clinton, appeared set to take the top U.S. diplomatic post after wrestling with whether she wanted to give up her Senate seat.

“We’re still in discussions, which are very much on track. Any reports beyond that are premature,” Clinton senior adviser Philippe Reines told Reuters.

The New York Times said it was a done deal. “She’s ready,” The Times quoted one of two Clinton associates who confirmed the deal as saying.

A senior Democrat told Reuters in Washington that Obama wanted Geithner for the Treasury job, but had yet to make an offer. He did confirm that Summers was no longer under consideration. “Summers is off the list,” he said.

The New York Times reported that Obama was likely to name Summers as an economic adviser with the expectation that he will eventually be tapped for the Federal Reserve Board and perhaps as Bernanke’s successor.

As a finance guy, I am hopeful that the Geithner appointment will prove to be the right one given how questionable Hank Paulson’s judgment calls have been during the crisis. However, it does concern me that he was very much a factor in the Lehman, Bear Stearns and AIG crises where the Government didn’t exactly knock the ball out of the park. I am going to leave my comments at that. For a different view, take a look at what Yves Smith has to say about this.

Oh, and by the way, the market really rallied on the Geithner pick, ending up 6 1/2%. Does that mean anything, though?

Source
Obama moves to pick Geithner for Treasury – Reuters

Related posts:

• Geithner and Summers consolidate power
• Obama White House: Add Larry Summers and Robert Gibbs
• The Clinton-Obama Divide
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama

This comes from the Huffington Post:

“Jobs, baby, jobs.”

Related posts:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Quote of the day: John McCain
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Hillary Clinton backer backlash

This comes from Larry Wright of the Detroit News via the Moderate Voice

No related posts.

A great article in New York magazine exposes what the Clintons really think about Obama, his campaign and the media. Given the animosity between the two camps, the choice of Patti Solis Doyle as Obama’s VP chief of staff spells trouble for an HRC VP nod. Solis Doyle, one of the top Hispanic women in politics, has not spoken to Clinton since she was fired as campaign chairwoman.

“It would be hard to overstate the private pessimism that Hillary and Bill Clinton feel about Obama’s general-election prospects. Or the irritation they feel about the dismissive attitudes of some of his advisers toward her coalition, as evinced by the words of Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, after the Pennsylvania primary: “The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections … This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.”

But the Clintons’ frustration with Obama’s people pales beside the simmering anger they harbor toward the media. And in this they are not alone. For months now, my e-mail box has been full of messages from women across the country, explaining what Hillary’s run meant to them, why it was so important. The reasons vary depending on age and race and region, but the one element almost all my correspondents express in common is a furious resentment at the press for what they see as blatant misogyny in the coverage of Clinton.”
-New York, 16 Jun 2008

I said as much in a post back in May called “What motivates Hillary? Part 2, but it’s interesting to hear this directly from sources close to the Clintons and the Clintons themselves.

In the end, regardless of whether you like Hillary, you have to respect those qualities which have gotten her to where she is.

Related posts:

• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Is Bill Clinton’s legacy tarnished?

Taylor Marsh has warned of the destructive impact an anti-Obama vote among supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) could have for Sen. Barack Obama. While it remains to be seen whether obnoxious Obama supporters caused this problem or whether Clinton herself is to blame for the divided party, the fact remains, this could get John McCain elected in November.

I am of the opinion that HRC went out of her way to divide the party and destroy Obama’s chances of victory out of petty pride. Despite her apparent support for Obama now, I believe HRC was only brought into line because party insiders warned her that her previous tactics would destroy her legacy and she would be penalized by Democratic insiders accordingly.

Don’t be fooled: the Democratic party is not a united one.

This is the most dangerous threat to Obama in November. It’s what I’ve been talking about and wrote about today. That Clinton supporters are going to ignore McCain’s record, because their anti-Obama feelings are stronger than what a McCain presidency would bring. …and so it begins. But this one comes from a delegate to the Democratic convention.

So why is anyone surprised that when Clinton delegate Debra Bartoshevich announced she had joined “Citizens for McCain” she was quickly made an example?

Debra Bartoshevich, a nurse from Waterford who was selected earlier this year as a Hillary Clinton delegate to this summer’s Democratic National Convention, announced this week that, “I will not be voting for Obama. I will cast my vote for John McCain.” For her part, Bartoshevich has joined “Citizens for McCain,” the group organized by Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, the 2000 Democratic vice presidential candidate who now sits in the Senate as an Independent Democrat, to get Democrats and independents to support the Republican candidate. That has not gone over well with Bartoshevich’s fellow Wisconsin Democrats. State Party chair Joe Wineke, an Edwards backer who is now enthusiastically for Obama, asked Friday night’s opening session of the state party convention to suspend party rules and begin an immediate process of stripping Bartoshevich of her national convention delegate status… …Two of Wisconsin’s most prominent Clinton backers, Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton and U.S. Rep. Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, delivered addresses hailing Obama… Debate over McCain backer spices up Dem convention

The two Clinton backers obviously are aware of what’s at stake… for Hillary, as well as themselves.

It’s only one delegate vote, but trust me, there’s a lot more where this one comes from, on the local level. The trouble is that this could end up hurting Hillary too. But no one seems to care about that repurcussion, or that Hillary will be working against a McCain presidency. They should, because big time political party payback can be a bitch, as Bartoshevich is quickly finding out. It would be worse for Clinton, because if anything but an all out effort for Obama isn’t made the blowback would be devastating, as it would if the candidates were reversed and Clinton were the nominee.

Bartoshevich has one choice if she doesn’t want to support Obama: register independent, which would cause her to lose her Democratic convention delegate status too, and rightly so. This reminds me of an exchange I had with a Clinton fundraiser yesterday. Lori Kreloff went off on me in an email exchange that had a subject heading, “wow…your audacity,” for deleting cheerleading McCain troll comments of hers, then proceded to chastise me for not “goog(ling) her” first, while bragging about her importance to the DNC and the Clintons, and that she was making sure “Hillary’s brother” and everyone else up the Democratic food chain knew “how awful” I was. I encouraged her to “yell it from the rafters.” My Irish-Scots attitude precedes any proclamation she can provide. After name dropping anyone she could, she then called me the “elitist.” She went on to say she’s joining up with “former supporters of mine,” also imparting that she’s now an independent and will work with them against Barack Obama. This email back and forth went on and on. Oh, and she’s also going to tell Donna Brazile on me! What ever will I do?

I have no doubt whatsoever that Hillary would disavow Bartoshevich’s actions, as well as any other Clintonite who tries to sabotage Hillary’s own power inside the Democratic Party. All that will happen from this is blowback against Clinton. That these party people don’t know this boggles the mind.

However, all this is playing out at the party level. At the average voter level there isn’t a payback system. That’s the level Obama and his team should be worried about.

Update: Wisconsin Democrat now publicly supports McCain

Related posts:

• The Selfish Gene
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag
• What motivates Hillary? Part 3

A map I caught at Time Magazine shows that the Clinton-Obama divide has much less to do with ‘white working class people’ and MUCH more to do with regional preferences. If you look at this map, what you see is that the margin of Obama victory is greatest in Democratic leaning areas and the margin is greatest for Clinton victories in Republican-leaning states.

The whole argument about working-class voters is a sham. That’s why the working class in Oregon and Wisconsin went for Obama and those in Ohio and West Virginia went for Clinton.

That’s something to remember for the general election.

Related posts:

• Clinton is softening her tone
• Discount All Caucus Wins
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Taylor Marsh warns of anti-Obama vote

I’m sorry, but this video is too funny not to post. Thanks, Carol.

Related posts:

• John McCain as Dr. Frankenstein?
• Wilting Over Waffles
• Hillary Clinton paid a heavy price for presidential run
• Hillary Clinton lied about NAFTA
• Hillary Clinton’s Michigan and Florida argument

As I predicted a few weeks ago, Hillary Rodham Clinton has abandoned the race for the President of the United States today. I was right by sheer luck more than skill, but there it is.

Here’s the story:

Hillary Clinton will abandon her White House bid at the end of the week and throw her support to rival Barack Obama, her campaign said Wednesday after she bid an emotional farewell to her loyal staff.

The announcement came a day after Barack Obama secured enough delegates to clinch the Democratic nomination and as the party coalesced behind the Illinois senator to take the fight to Republican John McCain.

Clinton had refused to concede Tuesday and said she would deliberate in the coming days, but the brief message from her team had an air of finality about her doomed bid to become the first woman president.

-AFP, 4 Jun 2008

Now, it’s on to the general election.

Related posts:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Hillary Clinton has shown she lacks character
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton

I have been reading Hillary Rodham Clinton’s biography by Carl Bernstein entitled “A Woman in Charge.” The book has been very effective in terms of allowing me a more nuanced view of HRC after I started to become disappointed with her campaign tactics. As a result, I tend to ascribe largely positive motives to HRC’s actions. However, I cannot discount ulterior motives which are more self-interested and disturbing.

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been in the race without a prayer of winning for some time now. There are multiple reasons why this could be. Let me outline three alternate scenarios as to why.

Scenario One: Positive Unifier
Quite frankly, HRC has always held firm in the belief that she is the better candidate for President. She believes steadfastly that she is more qualified and has a better resume. She was more of the decision-maker in the Clinton White House and Governor’s mansion than was Clinton himself.

Nevertheless, she realized she was going to lose. However, if she lost, she was going to go out swinging, fighting, as is her way. In the meantime, she would toughen up Barack Obama along the way. She would serve notice to him that he needed to up his game if he wanted in the White House. And if he crumbled and fell, then she would be there to win as she deserved.

As for the VP spot, she believes that she deserves to be President, but would very much appreciate the courtesy of being asked onto the ticket.

This is the scenario I largely believe HRC thinks about.

Scenario Two: Sore Loser
HRC certainly believes she deserves to win the nomination for Presidency for many of the reasons outlined above. But, she also has come to believe she’s entitled to the nomination. She is the inevitable nominee. This is her time, not Obama’s. How dare he intrude and ruin what is rightfully hers.

She realized at some point, his intrusion was going to cost her the nomination. So, she turned mean and ugly. She was spiteful and incredulous. If she wasn’t going to win, she was going to lay into Obama, not because she actually wanted him to lose, but rather because she was angry that he had not waited his turn. She wanted to hurt him as he had hurt her. If her kitchen sink strategy worked and he crumbled, then she would again be there to win as she was entitled.

As for the VP slot, she’s earned it.

Call it sour grapes; This scenario is more selfish, but understandable. I could see a little of this going through HRC’s mind. After all, it’s tough to lose when you’ve worked that hard.

Scenario Three: Who cares about the party; stick the knife in if necessary
HRC felt she was the better candidate, the inevitable candidate and she felt entitled to the nomination. Then along comes this style over substance neophyte and people actually buy his drivel. That made her angry. But, HRC is a thinking woman’s woman and when she get’s angry, she gets even.

First, she threw the kitchen sink at him, impugned his qualifications, rallied women to her side as the victim and did anything, absolutely anything she could to win. If this destroys the party, so be it. If I can’t win, she thought, nobody else should. Oh and if he does win, maybe I should be VP. You know what happened to JFK. Lyndon Johnson was a great president. The man who implemented civil rights. That could be me.

And if he doesn’t want to give me the VP slot that I deserve, I’ll make sure my voters stay home in November.

This scenario is a bit stomach-churning and I’m sure it is in her subconscious. But, politicians who still have some ethics cannot possibly choose this scenario as their raison d’etre.

Or could they?

Related posts:

• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• Hillary was angling for the VP spot
• The assassination gaffe: VP is next in line
• Polls: Is Barack Obama Poised To Lose North Carolina Democratic Primary?
• What motivates Hillary? Part 1

Up until Hillary was forced to re-calibrate because of Obama’s phenomenal success and to start denigrating the Senator from Illinois, she had run a good campaign. In my estimation, Clinton did a much better job than she is given credit for. I was turned off by her negative campaign style after Obama pulled off his miraculous string of victories. But, prior to that point, the Clinton campaign was quite formidable. She just ran into an amazing campaigner in Barack Obama, who upstaged her at every turn. Lincoln Mitchell has a post on the Huffington Post, which sums it up quite nicely.

Had Obama failed to raise more money than Hillary Clinton, not won in Iowa, not surprised many by consolidating African American support early in the campaign, not proven to be the most exciting Democratic candidate in at least a generation, encountered a major crisis earlier, or not responded to the first major crisis faced by his campaign with an extraordinary speech, Clinton would have likely won the nomination. Clinton’s campaign was prepared for everything; everything except Barack Obama and a campaign that exploited her least defended vulnerabilities, while engaging and mobilizing primary voters beyond what anybody expected.

Related posts:

• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• The New York Times is down on Clinton

When Hilary Rodham Clinton is finally forced off the campaign trail after her last ditch attempts to become President of the United States, the question is what awaits her. Will it be Senate Majority leader, eventual New York Governor, Supreme Court Justice?

Well, according to a very sobering article from Time Magazine, what awaits her as a Senator is much less glamorous and much more pedestrian.

Many have speculated that Clinton, as a sort of consolation prize on the other side of Pennsylvania Avenue, might make a good Majority Leader. But those doing the speculating clearly don’t understand the way the Senate works. Not only is majority leader actually a tedious, behind-the-scenes managerial position, but the current holder of that position, Harry Reid of Nevada, is a lot more popular in his party than outsiders realize, and his chief deputies, Dick Durbin and Charles Schumer, have their own ambitions. Senators want a leader they can call at any hour with complaints — in other words they want a referee, not a superstar. “The Senate needs to work on an hourly basis, a lot of labor-intensive work, and it’s a major shift when you’ve been operating at a certain altitude to come back and get involved in the nuts and bolts of the Senate literally 24 hours a day, 7 days a week and that’s what [being Majority Leader] involves,” said Senator Chris Dodd, who himself recently returned from the presidential field and is one of the 17 who endorsed Barack Obama.
-Can Hillary Readjust to the Senate?, Time Magazine, 28 May 2008

The article is quite a story. It reminds of words about the losers of the general election from an article in the Guardian newspaper a few months back. This is something for Hillary to think about because she is going home to DC soon.

Related posts:

• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Hillary was angling for the VP spot

Hillary Rodham Clinton’s behavior has hit a new low of ethical and moral standards among American national political figures. Her recent comments about Bobby Kennedy’s assassination were not just tasteless and wrong-headed, they unmask her as a person willing to do anything for her own personal gain.

In the past, she has made comments or suggestions that verge on the inappropriate, but one couldn’t put one’s finger on exactly what was most disturbing about the comments. She could always claim she was saving the party or being a fighter or that she was the victim of sexism. And all of these excuses are grounded in reality. It is this reality which let her get away with the most cynical and self-interested posturing in her pursuit of her national ambitions.

But, her latest comments leave me speechless.

Asked by South Dakota’s Sioux Falls Argus Leader newspaper about calls for her to drop out of the race, Clinton (D-N.Y.) said: “My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. You know I just, I don’t understand it.”
-Boston Herald, 24 May 2008

There is no place in America for this kind of rhetoric — not when Barack Obama has received death threats, not when Robert Kennedy’s brother has received a fatal prognosis, not in an America where assassination attempts have caused great trauma ever since Lincoln’s death. Her comments are horrible and completely unjustified. I continue to be astounded at the lengths to which she will go to suit her own personal ambitions.

Keih Olbermann has an editorial comment regarding these comments that I suggest you watch. But, I have read two articles which give voice to the horror I feel about Senator Clinton’s comments. I recommend reading both. The first article is from Gerard Baker at the Times of London. In his article, appropriately titled, “Voters just don’t trust Hillary,” he says the following:

Is Hillary Clinton the victim of a Vast Misogynist Conspiracy? Have her efforts to breach the ultimate glass ceiling in the world’s labour market been destroyed – as in the end we’re told all women’s efforts inevitably are destroyed – by a lethal combination of sneering chauvinism and locker-room clubbiness?

To the cynics this U.S. presidential election was always going to be a race to the bottom between racism and sexism. As the Democratic party continues to writhe through the final agonies of Senator Clinton’s collapsing ambitions, her people think they know the real winner. They are muttering angrily that she is the most high-profile victim yet of sexual discrimination in the workplace. A favourite theme among them now is that Mrs Clinton is a kind of sacrificial figure: the woman who so obviously should have won the presidency but was denied by woman-hatred, the one whose efforts were not enough to conquer the legions of male bigots but whose sacrifice has made it possible for future women to scale the mountaintop. Henceforth, as it were, all generations shall call her blessed.

Before ascribing this sentiment to a particularly powerful case of sore loser syndrome, we ought to acknowledge that it surely has a little merit. There are things that are said all the time about Mrs Clinton’s manner, her speaking style, assumptions that are made about her motivations, even the vocabulary in which she is described, that are, shall we say, certainly gender-specific. The cultural allusions played out with tired regularity to describe her campaigning style conjure the worst female images that lurk in the darkest corners of the male brain. She’s Lady Macbeth and The White Queen and Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction rolled into one.

And yet, are we truly expected to believe this is why Democratic voters have rejected her? I’ve no doubt that there are still some men who physically recoil at the thought of a woman in a powerful job but do people really think that there were not other – good – reasons for denying Senator Clinton her prize?

In the end the beauty of the “We only lost because people are sexist/racist/homophobic/stupid” argument is that it can’t really be rebutted. The only way to deal with it is to explain patiently and with great understanding that there were valid reasons why millions of intelligent, thoughtful and tolerant Americans decided to run a million miles from the idea that this woman – this woman – should become the most powerful person on the planet.

The principal reason voters give for not liking Senator Clinton is that they don’t trust her, that they sense that someone who would do or say anything to get elected is not someone who should be entrusted with the presidency. If anything has been demonstrated in the two long years in which she has been actively campaigning for the presidency, it is how right they are.

As she ratchets up her final efforts to wrest the nomination from Barack Obama’s grasp, she has finally cut herself free from the frayed moorings that connected her campaign with honesty and reality.

And Baker was only referencing her comparison of the Michigan and Florida delegate debacle to Al Gore’s loss in 2000 and, ludicrously, to Zimbabwe’s recent rigged election. Gerard wrote his article before the Kennedy assassination gaffe. (As an aside, I wonder what RFK’s children supporting Clinton think of her comments.)

The second article was from Mark Daniels at The Moderate Voice. He says:

I, for one, don’t believe that Clinton meant to draw an analogy between Senator Barrack Obama and Bobby Kennedy, insinuating that because the Illinois senator evokes the same sort of passion as Kennedy, he may be an assassin’s target, thereby presumably giving the New York senator reason for staying in the race for this year’s Democratic nomination. There was nothing to be gained by Clinton in making such a connection, especially among Democratic superdelegates, many of whom venerate Kennedy and his older brother, President John F. Kennedy, and, like most Americans, have just been saddened by the news that Senator Edward Kennedy is suffering from cancer. Clinton, in spite of what her many opponents may say, is not evil incarnate. She’s not stupid either.
-The Moderate Voice, 24 May 2008

Like Daniels, I give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. So, I especially like his point regarding the comments inaccuracy:

But comparing, June, 1968 to June, 2008, is not so much comparing apples to oranges as it is apples to King Kong.

One big difference is that the entire primary season in ‘68 began with New Hampshire’s primary, not on January 3, the date for the campaign-opening Iowa caucuses this year, but on March 12. That’s fully two months and nine days deeper into the calendar than this year.

The California primary, the last of a grand total of thirteen primaries held in 1968, was held on June 5.

Kennedy didn’t even declare his candidacy for President until March 16, 1968, four days after President Lyndon Johnson narrowly defeated anti-Vietnam War senator, Eugene McCarthy, in New Hampshire.

Kennedy therefore, on the night of the California primary, was still a candidate for president little more than three months into his campaign and just three months after the first contest. By contrast, Senator Clinton announced her candidacy on January 22. 2007!

The date of the California primary in 1968 would, if put in an analogous position on this year’s election calendar, fall on April 3, a date that’s already two-and-a-half months past.
-The Moderate Voice, 24 May 2008

So, not only was her point tasteless, it was an inaccurate, bad analogy. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a desperate politician who lacks a moral compass. There is nothing gender-specific about this. I feel the same way about her husband. These two politicians will do and say just about anything to get elected.

Related posts:

• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Hillary is White
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• New York magazine exposes Clinton in private
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?

I said a month ago that Hillary Clinton’s calculus might have been designed specifically to capture a VP spot on a joint ticket, if she could not win the nomination. Here is what I said on April 23rd:

Ultimately, David Gergen, a very prescient political analyst on CNN, may be right. He said it may be her calculation that by running until the end in a negative campaign, the party will be so divided that the VP slot MUST be filled by the losing candidate. The logic makes sense. So what if the party’s divided now. Obama needs Hillary and Hillary needs Obama. Hillary can at least be assured of a VP slot now.

If this is Clinton’s calculus, it is in her interest to stay in the campaign as long as possible. She cannot afford to have healing begin without her because this would obviate the need for her as a VP if Obama wins the nomination. She must carry on, attcking Obama for as long as possible if she wants to secure the VP slot.

Hey, it may not be pretty but it works.

Later, on May 9th as it became clear that Obama was likely to win the nomination, I recanted saying:

Hillary Clinton still has the ability to turn her supporters against an Obama candidacy and split the party. There are those who believe she is holding out for a VP nod. After all, Dick Cheney has shown hat a strong VP can do. And with Bill and she together, the Vice-Presidency might be a strong card for Hillary. I tend to doubt she wants it. After all, she is a woman who likes power and control and the VP slot gives her neither. Moreover, it seals her fate as a Presidential candidate because she won’t be able to run in 2012 and she will be 69 in 2016, as old as the oldest persons ever elected President (William Henry Harrison and Ronald Reagan). This is Hillary’s last shot and she knows it. Hence, the desperation.

I did say on May 19:

going on beyond June 4th would be entirely self-interested. Obama will certainly hit the magic 2025 by June 3rd, so going beyond the primary season could only be seen as a strategy to extract maximum personal gain in terms of a VP slot, to maximize leverage for her agenda and people, or to kneecap Obama in hopes of running in 2012. I look at a post-June 4th strategy as quite sinister and cynical.

But, I had finished with thinking Hillary wanted to be VP. Well, I was right the first time. Al Giordano, at “The Field” wrote:

The Field can now confirm, based on multiple sources, something that both campaigns publicly deny: that Senator Clinton has directly told Senator Obama that she wants to be his vice presidential nominee, and that Senator Obama politely but straightforwardly and irrevocably said “no.” Obama is going to pick his own running mate based on his own criteria and vetting process.
-The Field, The Nightmare Ticket Is Dead, 22 May 2008

“The Field” blames Bill Clinton for this debacle. I blame Hillary Rodhan Clinton This politician is truly incredible. I thought she had some sense of decency and honesty. Maybe I went soft on her while reading her Biography recently. But, it is apparent now that she will really do just about anything to get what she wants.

Related posts:

• Hillary as Vice-President
• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign

The Jed Report has a video with the facts regarding what the Clinton campaign said and when regarding Florida and Michigan. She is being quite disingenuous on this issue and is further undermining her credibility as an honest person. Watch the video.

Related posts:

• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• Young Hillary Clinton
• Mitt Romney vs. Hillary Clinton
• Hillary Clinton paid a heavy price for presidential run
• Hillary Clinton lied about NAFTA

I am flabbergasted at this figure: $31 million. In no other country would any politician run up this much debt in an election. It speaks to the cost of our current system of democracy. Isn’t there a less costly way to run a country?

The LA Times is reporting that Hillary Clinton is nearly $31 million in debt. The news comes off a release from her campaign Tuesday night that she has raised $22 million:

No wonder Sen. Hillary Clinton was so late filing her required campaign financial reports Tuesday night. Her political team didn’t want the shocking news in it to overshadow her lopsided thumping of Sen. Barack Obama in Kentucky.

Now comes the morning after, pay-up time. Clinton’s campaign debt has now soared to nearly $31 million, according to numbers crunched early this morning by The Times’ campaign finance guru, Dan Morain.

-The Huffington Post, 21 May 2008

Related posts:

• Pennsylvania win gives Clinton a boost
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton

As good a battle as Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) could give, her candidacy was handicapped from the outset. Despite her overwhelming lead in the polls in 2007, it has been obvious all along that many Democrats and independents were looking for someone, anyone but HRC as a nominee. Why? Clinton fatigue.

You could look at this in two ways. First, there is the fact that Hillary and Bill Clinton have been in the national spotlight without fail for 16 years. With Hillary joining the Senate on Jan. 4, 2001, right before her husband’s term in office came to an end, they have been in power in Washington for 16 years. That’s a very long time to hold the spotlight without suffering. And suffered they have, especially regarding the scandals during Bill’s administration. From my perspective, it is those scandal-ridden days that has doomed her presidential aspirations.

Second, an HRC presidency would mean 24 or 28 years of Bush-Clinton wars. Although the nomination has focused more on race, class and sex, the truth is it has a lot to do with a generational shift in politics, just as 1992 did. Many younger voters are sick of hearing Bush-Clinton, Clinton-Bush and want to move on. The Editor-in-Chief, Joe Gandelman over at the blog, the Moderate Voice, says it well:

Why couldn’t she clinch it earlier, since she had been the front-runner? Why haven’t the many arguments used by the Clinton campaign in recent weeks gotten much traction?

In the last part of his post today Polman hits the nail on the head and says what many other journalists have hinted at in recent weeks:

One feature of the slow-motion Clinton funeral ceremony is the ongoing procession of euologists, all of them offering reasons for the demise of the Clinton candidacy. Clinton herself, naturally, doesn’t believe it’s her fault; she blames it on sexism (”people who are nothing but misogynists”). Her husband doesn’t think it’s her fault; he blames it – naturally – on the press (he said in Kentucky, “this has been the most slanted press coverage in American history”). And her in-house loyalists – quoted not for attribution in perhaps the best article of all – pin the blame on various top aides for alleged messaging, tactical, and strategic deficiencies.

And yet, all these eulogies seem to overlook the biggest factor of all: Clinton fatigue. The inescapable truth is that a huge Democratic constituency was hungering for an alternative to the Clintons. I heard this repeatedly, as far back as 2002. While interviewing Washington-based Democrats, I was struck by how often they would trash the party’s golden duo. (I knew it was coming when they would preface their remarks by asking, “Can I go off the record for a moment?”) As one prominent party woman – this is someone who appears regularly on national TV, in a neutral mode – remarked to me in 2003, “We need to put the Clintons in a cage somewhere, with a blanket thrown over it.”

The point is, millions of Democrats were poised to support a strong not-Hillary candidate. Obama filled the bill, and the Clintons, convinced of their entitlement, were way too slow in taking him seriously – and in recognizing that his early support was, in some important ways, a referendum on them.

All of which leaves Hillary with basically one argument, and I suspect we’ll hear it again tonight: the notion that, in the wake of a Kentucky win, she is actually ahead in the national popular vote…as long as one ignores the party rules and counts Florida and Michigan. Right. And if she only had wings, she could win the Boston Marathon.

If there was latent Clinton fatigue out there (as I also believe there has been) Bill Clinton’s red-faced campaign appearances and controversies which helped Clinton with some groups could have sandbagged her in the long-run.

Of course, it isn’t over until THIS LADY sings, and she’s not singing yet.

But she’s starting to hum.

-The Moderate Voice, 21 May 2008

Related posts:

• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• New York magazine exposes Clinton in private
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Clinton is softening her tone
• Unbelievable Clinton debt load

As Hillary Rodham Clinton rolled up a huge victory in Kentucky and lost the Oregon primary to Barack Obama, it is clear that the ‘Kitchen Sink’ strategy is no longer. She is playing much more of a united front with the probable nominee. The blog The Carpetbagger Report sees this as a net positive.

“It’s hard to measure these questions with any reliable specifics, but it seems as if there’s been a relative ceasefire in Democratic circles the past couple of weeks. Hillary Clinton is still working hard, just as she has been, but it’s clear her campaign has shelved the “kitchen-sink” strategy first utilized in March, preferring not to attack Barack Obama much at all. Indeed, Clinton has been far more aggressive in targeting John McCain of late than Obama.

As such, it also seems the calls for Clinton’s withdrawal have dropped in volume, and probably in number. If Clinton wants to keep going, but she’s not campaigning in such a way as to hurt the party’s chances in the fall, and Obama can transition to general-election mode anyway, then anxious Dems no longer feel a sense of urgency about ending the nominating fight.”

-The Carbetbagger Report, 21 May 2008

I see no reason for Hillary to exit. And as long as she’s attacking McCain no one seems to mind. Ultimately, it is in her best interest to stay in because, with huge wins in Kentucky and West Virginia, she has a decent story to tell and could still win if Obama has a game-changing gaffe or scandal.

Related posts:

• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• What motivates Hillary? Part 3
• Edwards backing eliminates need for Clinton
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton

This is the provocative title of an article a friend I greatly respect sent me. Have a go at it at the link at the bottom of the following quote; it is very blunt and sincere. The article says:

Feminisms of all sorts have moved beyond the idea that feminism is a white woman’s thing; or that feminisms should be particularly beholden to the white mainstreamed part of the U.S. women’s movement. Large numbers of women, especially women of color, but many white women as well, know that race and gender are inseparable and that is why most of these women, whatever their color, are voting for Barack Obama. Hillary should not be allowed to push feminism backwards for her own political ambition. It is not surprising that it is older white women who disproportionately support her. They identify with old notions of womanhood-a homogenized notion that all females share an identity, and race and class are not connected issues to be named and spoken. This is why younger women and progressive women from the civil rights and women’s movements, some of whom are older, disproportionately support Obama.

My thoughts about Hillary Clinton have their own history, which also coincide with her history. I have not been a fan of hers. I have written critically of her for more than a decade now. She has never spoken on behalf of women or as a candidate with a woman’s agenda, let alone as a feminist when she was in the White House. Many of us who are her contemporaries were active in the Civil Rights Movement and Women’s Movements and Anti-Vietnam War movement — while she chose not to be. Her one speech addressing the exploitation of women was delivered in Beijing, China, as though it is women outside, but not inside the U.S. who face untold discrimination. Now she runs for president and has become a gun-toting, war mongering white woman who asks for your vote if you are an angry white Reagan Democrat. Maybe she thinks manly gender is the answer for breaking glass ceilings for women.

-Zillah Eisenstein, commondreams.org, 18 May 2008

While I have been reading more about Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Bernstein biography and developing a more favorable impression of her, she still leaves me worried and disturbed by her behavior. It’s as if I want to like her but cannot because what she says and does suggests she is a ‘monster,’ to quote Samantha Power.

On the whole, I am left feeling she is a person who is not entirely comfortable with herself and the decisions she has made in life but cannot face this discomfort because doing so would represent failure. And above all else Hillary Rodham Clinton wants to be a success and seen as a success. To me, this is her most clear and obvious motivating force in life.

Related posts:

• The Selfish Gene
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton
• The Democratic Primary: Three Alternate Views
• Hillary Clinton backer backlash

Linda Bergthold at the Huffington Post makes a good case that supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton are really pretty selfish if they decide not to vote for Obama because of sour grapes.

But now that Clinton is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic party, we are hearing a terrible moaning and whining on the part of Clinton’s women supporters, even to the point that some are saying they will not vote for Obama in the Fall. As much as many of us would have liked to see a woman President, it has become apparent that to insist on a woman candidate is mainly about “us” not about what the majority of Democratic voters may want or need. It is selfish of us to insist on a Clinton victory, and appalling to hear such women leaders as Geraldine Ferraro implying she might not vote for Obama because she is so disappointed that Hillary cannot win. A McCain victory would be anathema to the causes that Hillary Clinton has always supported like choice, a repudiation of No Child Left Behind, health care for all, and women’s rights.
-Linda Bergthold, The Selfish Gene Is Female, The Huffington Post

It’s less selfish and more disappointing. They would regret it.

Related posts:

• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• Taylor Marsh warns of anti-Obama vote
• Operation Chaos
• Hillary Clinton backer backlash
• Is Bill Clinton’s legacy tarnished?

I have developed a great deal of sympathy for Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) recently. It helps that I’m reading her biography right now. In the last two posts on HRC, I have argued that she is an imminently electable candidate and that she believes she is the best candidate for office. Therefore, she has every reason to stay in this race at least through June 4th. However, she has almost no chance to win the Democratic nomination. In my opinion, this has been the case for quite some time. Inevitably, she will exit this race either on June 4th, before the convention or in a fight at the convention.

As a result, the first question has to be: when should she leave the race in order to enhance the chances of a Democratic victory (if that is what HRC wants as a loyal Democrat)? But, the real question is more to style than substance: how will Hillary Rodham Clinton treat Barack Obama?

Will HRC attack Obama? Will she question his qualification for office as she has done in the past? Will she suggest his nomination is illegitimate because of Florida and Michigan? Will she campaign hard for him in the general election? And will she ask her supporters to support him in turn? How she chooses to act will have great implications for Barack Obama.

When should she get out? June 4th.
June 4th is the date that Clinton should abandon her campaign. First, objectively, Hillary has no chance of winning this one now. The die is cast. Obama is likely to get over the 50% of the pledged delegate count after Kentucky and Oregon. He cannot be stopped. Knowing this, when should Clinton abandon her campaign?

To answer that one has to put oneself in Hillary’s shoes. What incentive does Hillary Clinton have for getting out now? Hillary Clinton is going to look after Hillary Clinton; after all she is a politician. And there is zero reason for her to abandon now. She has been going at this for months, preparing in advance for years. She has built a huge database of donors and supporters. And you expect her to just close up shop from one day to the next. “Okay, that’s it. We lost. I’m done.” Well, what’s in it for her? Nothing. She is not going to abandon the race before the last primary is held on June 3rd.

Even if she were a ‘quitter’ and wanted to abandon, she has a responsibility to those that have supported her. My read of her psychological makeup is that she takes those kinds of responsibilities seriously. To just give up would be a disappointment and humiliation to the sacrifice people have made to bring her this far. Moreover, if you were Obama, you wouldn’t want her to quit now anyway because the bitterness this would engender amongst loyal Clinton supporters would be enormous and that would lead to low voter turnout in November. Bad for Barack.

Yes, I know I am suggesting she ‘go through the motions’ or ‘run the clock out’ or whatever analogy you want to make. But, hey, she is so close to the end, it doesn’t make sense not to see it through.

On the other hand, going on beyond June 4th would be entirely self-interested. Obama will certainly hit the magic 2025 by June 3rd, so going beyond the primary season could only be seen as a strategy to extract maximum personal gain in terms of a VP slot, to maximize leverage for her agenda and people, or to kneecap Obama in hopes of running in 2012. I look at a post-June 4th strategy as quite sinister and cynical.

Howard Dean and other leading Democrats recognize the power Hillary Clinton has to destroy the party if she proceeds beyond June 4th. I imagine they are looking to make sure that Obama can win significantly more than 2100 delegates in order to obviate the Michigan and Florida strategy that Clinton is STILL pushing. This would put him over the top in any scenario.

How will she treat Obama?
More important is how Hillary Clinton acts towards Obama after she does decide to exit. Gerald Ford went to his grave convinced that Ronald Reagan’s tepid support in the 1976 General Election cost him the Presidency. Clinton has the opportunity to act as spoiler in quite the same way that Reagan did. Reagan contested the nomination right to the convention. But, when it came time to give stump speeches and to join Ford on the road in order to win over what we now know to be “Reagan Democrats,’ Ronald Reagan was nowhere to be found.

Clinton’s supporters are extremely angry right now, especially after the NARAL announcement in favor of Obama. Couldn’t they have waited until primary season was over? Are they looking to humiliate Hillary Clinton? What has she done to deserve this? These are the questions loyal Clinton supporters are asking themselves right now. If Hillary pulls a Reagan this year, Obama could be in deep water come November.

Conclusion
Hillary Clinton has definitely toned down the attacks. Have you heard boo about her attacking Obama on the campaign trail? No. She is ganging up on McCain with other Dems. However, she is still pushing the Michigan and Florida issues hard. So, she is still maximizing the last leverage she has just in case. But, she has obviously realized the jig is up.

Therefore, I fully expect Hillary Clinton to exit the race for the Democratic nomination on June 4th and to back Barack Obama with conviction. Whether she eventually gets the VP slot or a Supreme Court nomination is a subject for another time.

Sources
Clinton praises McCain again, says he’s crossed ‘Commander in Chief threshold’, The Carbetbagger Report, 7 Mar 2008
Obama will reach 2025 delegates on June 3, Daily Kos, 5 May 2008
Back to Michigan and Florida, Katharine Seelye (New York Times), 7 May 2008
First Thoughts: Now Obama’s Party?, First Read-MSNBC, 15 May 2008
Fact check: Clinton vote claims under scrutiny, Calvin Woodward and David Pace (Associated Press), 15 May 2008
The Stealth Campaign to Delegitimize Obama, Daily Kos, 17 May 2008
Write it When I’m Gone, a book by Thomas DeFrank

Related posts:

• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Echoes of 1976: Ford vs. Reagan all over again
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds
• Hillary as Vice-President

Yesterday, I said that Hillary Rodham Clinton is imminently qualified to be President of the United States. That’s why she is running for office. I believe that she is still running for office in large part because she thinks she is a better candidate than Barack Obama.

I’m not going to run
When Hillary Clinton was preparing to run for President after her reelection to the Senate in 2006, it was obvious that Barack Obama was an up-and-coming star in the Democratic party. Therefore, I believe Hillary sounded him out on his intentions regarding the Presidency. I imagine he told her that he was not going to run in 2008 and she believed him. After all, Obama had only been in office for less than 2 years in 2006 and will be in office just under 4 years on election day in 2008. Looking at other possible candidates like Kerry, Gore, Biden, Dodd and the whole lot, none really had the same credible national reputation that she did. Green light.

Actually I am running
Fast forward to 2007 and it soon was apparent that Barack Obama was running for President. In fact, despite the ‘inevitability’ of Clinton’s nomination, Obama was able to announce his run days before she announced her candidacy. This embarrassment foreshadowed the poor management of her campaign and her underestimation of Obama’s appeal down the road. However, at the time, Barack Obama could hardly be considered a serious contender to Clinton. Most polls showed Clinton with an enormous lead over all major competitors well into 2007.

Clinton believes she is best placed
Hillary Clinton must have believed that she was indeed an inevitable nominee because she ran her campaign like a frontrunner throughout 2007. And why shouldn’t she believe she was the best candidate. She had name recognition, first-hand experience in the White House, two terms in the Senate, a rolodex of current and former Heads of State, a money-raising prowess like no one, and a claim to national notoriety for nearly 40 years. Certainly, the likes of Dodd, Biden and Richardson had the experience, if not the appeal and name recognition. But Barack Obama had none of these advantages. He has less than 4 years in the Senate, 7 years as a State Senator and no public sector executive experience. And he was an unknown quantity on the national stage. Clinton must have thought little of him as a contender.

First impressions harden
Barack Obama once said of himself that he serves “as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” And the view that many projected on this unknown quantity was one of ‘much rhetoric, more hype, little substance.’ Nationally syndicated journalist Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal said it best in a December 2006 article before Obama announced his candidacy.

Obama does seem to have an impressive resume and polish. And it’s not his fault that a mania for some new political face intrudes on every presidential election season. But one does wish, for the sake of democracy, that we could skip the crush and give less glamorous contenders who actually say something more of a hearing.
-Froma Harrop, 26 Dec 2006

This was the first impression Barack Obama made on the ’substance over style’ crowd, which includes Hillary Clinton. Therefore, Clinton had to believe that she was not only more qualified on paper, but also in terms of substantive knowledge about policy and procedure. Moreover, Clinton perfected the art of triangulation with her husband Bill Clinton in Arkansas and in the 1992 and 1996 elections. The resulting ‘centrist’ approach is seen as appealing to Reagan Democrats in a way that Barack Obama could not be.

And as is the way with people, those first impressions hardened. Eventually, people were calling Obama an ‘empty suit.’ Clinton herself questioned his qualifications for the job and ability to appeal to “hard-working Americans.” These were dangerous gambits because, in both instances, they touch a nerve with any American black due to American cultural stereotypes about Blacks regarding affirmative action and effort.

***I personally believe most of the ’substance over style’ debate has everything to do with natural human biases and less to do with Presidential mettle. It is a debate mostly about personality and psychological type. Obama is an intuitive-perceiver (NP) who comes across as strategic and innovative or vague and naive depending on the biases of your own personal psychological type.

So, here we are
So, we’ve gone through 16 months and (in my opinion) wasted probably $300 million watching these two Democratic candidates rip each other apart in their quest for the presidency. In the meantime, much animosity has developed between the two candidates and between their supporters. So much so that polls increasingly show large percentages of Democratic primary voters unwilling to vote for the other side in the general election.

At this point, Hillary Clinton must have an extreme aversion for Obama and his people indeed. It was unlikely that she believed he is a better candidate for office when she began. Sixteen months later, it is even less likely. Regardless of other motives, this is reason enough for her to continue her quest to win the nomination.

Sources
Hillary Clinton launches White House bid: ‘I’m in’, CNN, 20 Jan 2007
Poll: Black support helps Clinton extend lead, CNN, 17 Oct 2007
Hillary No Longer the Inevitable Democratic Presidential Nominee, Huffington Post, 7 Dec 2007
Obama Scores as Exotic Who Says Nothing, RealClearPolitics.com, 26 Dec 2007
Clinton praises McCain again, says he’s crossed ‘Commander in Chief threshold’, The Carbetbagger Report, 7 Mar 2008
Clinton makes case for wide appeal, USA Today, 07 May 2008

Related posts:

• What motivates Hillary? Part 1
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• What motivates Hillary? Part 3
• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign

So why is Hillary Rodham Clinton in a race she obviously can’t win? Money, VP ticket calculations, kneecapping Obama for 2012, or stubbornness? There are lots of reasons. The first among them is she thinks she is the best candidate and that Obama can’t win a general election. This is a three-part answer: one part why she is the best to win and the 2nd why Obama can’t win. The third part is what she needs to do as a ‘loyal’ democrat. I will address the first part her: why she believes she is the best candidate.

She is imminently qualified
Hillary Clinton is a remarkable person who has been in the public eye since she captured the nation’s attention as the first student commencement speaker at Wellesley College in 1969. That’s almost 40 years in and out of the spotlight. According to Carl Bernstein’s book, “A Woman in Charge,” many people, even early on at Law School, could sense in her the ability of a person to one day become President.

However, many feel she threw that all away for Bill Clinton. She fell in love with him and took what was considered the traditional route to power for women in previous generations, marrying into power. She left the national spotlight for a backseat role in his campaign to become a power in his home state of Arkansas, a place where she was likely to not fit in.

Nevertheless, she continued to champion causes related to children and education and rose to national prominence along with her husband. Irrespective of how she entered the national spotlight, it is apparent she has the intelligence, knowledge, tenacity and connections equal to anyone who would want to run for president. Therefore, it is fair to say she is a formidable and qualified challenger for the Presidency.

Her quest
Hillary is also very ambitious. It’s not just about the ability but rather aspiration and engagement as well. I personally believe that it’s her ambition that is at the core of her drive to seek elected office. Everyone that knows her has said she has been determined from an early age to be in charge — whether in high school, college, law school or as Senator and Presidential candidate. Given her record of early ambition, it is remarkable that she accepted a less illustrious path as Arkansas’ First Lady. Many women might recognize this as the Faustian bargain they must make, but men must not make — in order to have it all — a family, love, happiness, and a career.

It is equally noteworthy that Clinton took a very low-key approach as a freshman Senator after joining the Senate in 2001. She did not overreach or try to use her star appeal to make a name when she first came to office. She simply got to work, in what was then a Republican-controlled Congress.

Her engagement
Hillary Clinton is a very engaging and engaged person. She has always been. She wanted the authority and leadership from an early age. As first born, she took a lead in her home, in school and then later in life. She is a person who seems to willingly accept responsibility and faithfully carry out whatever needs to be done in order to accomplish the task at hand. One may question her tactics (was she the fighter behind Bill Clinton’s 1992 bid using sometimes dirty politics?) or policy choices regarding the ill-fated Health Care Plan in 1993-1994. However, one could never fault her engagement and command of the issues.

My psychoanalysis
No one can really know what motivates someone except that person herself. So, when we ask what drives Hillary, it’s pure speculation and conjecture. Hopefully, the speculation is well-founded based on past behavior and knowledge of what motivates and drives human beings. With that I will throw my hat into the ring.

To me, it seems fairly obvious that Barack Obama has a nearly insurmountable lead in the Democratic nomination race given the evidence available to date. Moreover, it is well known that hotly contested primary contests lead to animosity, bitterness and loss in the general election (Witness the Democrats in 1968, 1972, and 1980 or the Republicans in 1976). Finally, I believe Hillary Clinton went out of her way to question the ability and qualification of Barack Obama during the nomination, an affront to any black person of accomplishment. So, why would she continue to fight so hard? why would she attack Obama as unqualified — merely having ‘a speech in he gave in 2002,’ but praise the Republican candidate as ‘qualified to be Commander-in-Chief from day one.’ Why risk alienating voters, splitting the Democratic party and engendering hard feelings amongst the electorate. Why?

She believes what she says — that she is the better candidate, more qualified, more electable and more likely to win in November. And she is prepared to fight until the bitter end to defend her belief.

Related posts:

• What motivates Hillary? Part 2
• Hillary as Vice-President
• Hillary Strangelove
• Now Obama is back to not being good enough?
• Geraldine Ferraro: what is she really saying?

The NARAL endorsement of Barack Obama has laid bare the anger and angst of the most fervent of pro-Hillary supporters and demonstrates the depth of emotion now playing out in this Democratic nomination campaign. The internecine war between the two base constituencies of blacks and women is reminiscent of the conflict between the Woman’s and Civil Rights movement of the late 1800’s.

I have often lamented the Democratic party’s disunity, seeming to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory in 2008. The Obama-Clinton war was a sometimes sad spectacle which I have watched with great emotion. I very much sympathize with women who feel let down with Hillary Clinton’s likely loss of the nomination for President. I also understand their not entirely constructive desire to vote for anyone but Obama becuase of the anger and spite they now feel. My hope is that their anger will recede because it is important that a Republican not be President after eight years under George W. Bush.

First signs of explosion
My first realization that this explosive burst of anger at the Democratic party from active Clinton supporters came when I read an article in the Washington Post by Ellen Malcom, founder of Emily’s List on May 9th after the Indiana and North Carolina primaries. She said:

When I was growing up in the 1960s, I wanted to play basketball. In those days, the rules said girls could dribble only three steps and then had to pass the ball. To make sure we didn’t overexert ourselves, we weren’t allowed to cross the half-court line. It’s a wonder our fans (our mothers) could stay awake when a typical game’s final score was 14-10.

It’s remarkable that my generation of women entered the workforce and began to compete in business, politics and the hurly-burly of life outside the home. How did we ever learn to locate, much less channel, our competitive instincts in a world that made us play half-court and assumed that we would be content staying home to iron the shirts? It’s a tremendous tribute to women of my generation that we sucked it up and learned to compete in the toughest environments.

Which brings us to Hillary Clinton running for president. This brilliant woman believes that she can compete for the most powerful office in the world. She believes that she can do a better job than any of the men running to lead our country through these challenging times. And millions of Americans, women and men, believe that she is correct.

Yet over and over again the media and her opponents have claimed that she is defeated — it’s over, she can’t win, she’s a loser. And over and over again — in New Hampshire, on Super Tuesday, in Texas and Ohio, in Pennsylvania last month, and in Indiana this week — female voters poured out of their homes to cast their ballots for her. They know that women can compete, and they want to make sure that women, especially this woman, can win.

It’s not surprising that low-income working women are the cornerstone of Hillary’s success. Many of these women live on the edge of disaster. A pink slip, a family member’s illness, a parent who can no longer live alone, a car that won’t start or a mortgage rate that goes up — all are threats that could devastate the family. And yet these women do what women have done for ages. They put on a confident face, feed their children breakfast and get them off to school. They don’t quit. They suck it up and fight back against whatever life throws their way.

They see in Hillary Clinton a candidate who understands the pressures they face. As they watch her tough it out against all odds, refusing to quit and continuing to compete against whatever the media and her opponents throw her way, they see a woman as tough and resilient as they are. They clearly want her to win. Her victory, I believe, is their victory.

So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.

Why on earth should one candidate quit before the contest is finished? Democrats need not be so fainthearted. Both of the party’s remaining candidates have raised tens of millions of dollars. Both have the respect of Democrats nationwide. Each has a progressive agenda that stands in stark contrast to Sen. John McCain and his adherence to Bush administration policies.

So why are some Democrats so afraid? We simply need to count every vote, let the remaining states have their say and see the process through to its conclusion.

Hillary Clinton certainly has the right to compete till the end. But I believe Hillary also has a responsibility to play the game to its conclusion. For the women of my generation who learned to find and channel their competitiveness, for the working women who never falter in the face of pressure, for the younger women who still believe women can do anything, Hillary is a champion. She’s shown us over and over that winners never quit and that quitters never win. We’ll cheer her on until the game is over. And we hope that when the final whistle blows, we will have elected the first female president and the best president our country has ever had.

The writer is founder and president of Emily’s List.

-Ellen Malcom, Washington Post, “Quitters Never Win”

Malcolm expresses a positive message that identifies in Hillary Clinton the fight that many women of her generation endured. But, I sensed then that, while her tone was positive, there was an anger she was not expressing. Clinton had been the inevitable Democratic nominee from the beginning of 2007. She is the first women to run for the Presidency to have a credible opportunity to win the election (Shirley Chisholm and Elizabeth Dole came before but were not nearly as strong as candidates). And now she is being tossed aside like yesterday’s news. And she is losing to a man who arguably is less qualified than she to be president. This is all too reminiscent of the struggle women have making in the working world for decades. Emotions her supporters might feel? Concern, frustration, disappointment, anger.

Then came the NARAL Pac’s endorsement of Obama. NARAL is the country’s leading advocacy group supporting women’s right to choose. After NARAL announced in favor of Obama, Sam Stein of the Huffington Post wrote:

Combined, the blowback from NARAL’s endorsement is enough to suggest that Obama, should he become the nominee, may face future political hurdles when reaching out to the women’s rights movement. But his record, compared to both Clinton and McCain, is strong on the group’s issues. He has received three straight perfect ratings in NARAL’s congressional record, has consistently supported a pro-choice platform, and his seven “present” votes (which Pappas cites) in the Illinois Senate were driven, he says, by legislative strategy rather than policy disagreements. 

He certainly recognizes the potential fallout for the general election. But he underestimates the depth of emotion engendered by this nomination battle. My fear is that the fissures created by the first front-runner African-American and first female candidates for President going head-to-head will be devastating.

Blacks obtained the right to vote in 1865 and fought to retain those rights in the face of the end of Reconstruction. Their rights may have put the Women’s suffrage
movement on the back burner for 50 years. Meanwhile, the Women’s suffrage movement had to wait until 1920 before women receive the right to vote in America.

As we entered the Democratic nomination campaign, both groups feared this could be their ‘only shot.’ Now, as evidence mounts that Blacks again will get their shot first, women feel betrayed and are upset. What they choose to do with this anger is what worries me.

Sources

• Quitters Never Win by Ellen R. Malcom for the Washington Post
• Misogyny I Won’t Miss by Marie Cocco for the Washington Post
• Massive Blowback To NARAL’s Obama Endorsementby Sam Stein for the Huffington Post
• NARAL Sticks a Finger in Our Eye by Allison Fine for the Huffington Post
• Sandra Lee Gould review of the book Douglass’ Women By Jewell Parker Rhodes
• Love Across Color Lines: Ottilie Assing and Frederick Douglass, a book by Maria Diedrich
• A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Carl Bernstein
• Ledbetter v. Goodyear, Supreme Court Decision on pay discrimination

Related posts:

• The Selfish Gene
• Hillary is White
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• On My Switch From Clinton to Obama
• My love-hate relationship with Hillary Rodham Clinton

Hillary Clinton is a person who engenders great emotion. People say that you either love her or you hate her. I often feel both emotions at the same time when it comes to her. I love her tenacity and grit. I hate her arrogance, stubbornness and self-importance. I love her history of fighting for women, children and education. I hate her history of cynicism, triangulation, and pandering in running for and helping her husband run for elected office. And I love her intelligence and desire to work hard in spite of it. This primary election campaign has brought out these emotions in spades.

Currently, I am reading Carl Bernstein’s biography of her, A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I think it offers a balanced view of one of the most important political figures of her generation. I started reading it after my disgust with her had reached a crescendo and I needed a little more objectivity.

After having voted for her in her first campaign for public office against Rick Lazio in 2000, I was amazed at how much I had begun to dislike her. I had always mistrusted Bill Clinton, but I saw them as two very different animals. But, her campaign tactics soon left me angry and betrayed that I had ever voted for her.

Having read more about her and her struggles, I am left feeling much more positive about her and her legacy, but disappointed in her evolution as a politician and a human being. In my eyes, she has been partially rehabilitated but I doubt I will ever hold her in the same esteem again.

Related posts:

• Hillary Rodham Clinton ran a good campaign
• As I predicted: On June 4th Hillary Rodham Clinton abandons race
• Hillary Clinton has shown she lacks character
• Unbelievable Clinton debt load
• Hillary Clinton takes good step toward healing party wounds

With John Edwards in tow, Barack Obama has less need to install Hillary Clinton as his running mate in order to win less educated white voters in November. His Achilles heel has been amongst these white, working class voters. The fear is they will switch en masse from voting Democratic for Hillary Clinton in the primaries to voting for McCain or not at all in November. The John Edwards endorsement helps there. But, it is not enough.

In 2004, Edwards was on the Democratic ticket with Kerry as VP and didn’t help Kerry win even in Edwards’ home state. The fact is that John Edwards just doesn’t have enough pull. Moreover, the VP slot is much less important in voters’ decision-making process. So, Edwards’ support can’t do the job putting Hillary Clinton in the VP slot would.

That said, Obama would do well to choose Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius or Ohio Governor Ted Strickland as a running mate. These moderate Democrats may make the difference in a close election, where Hillary Clinton’s high negatives might have the effect of increasing Republican turnout.

The Washington Post offers some thoughts on best VP candidates for both parties.

Related posts:

• Obama turned off Edwards
• The New York Times is down on Clinton
• Pennsylvania goes to Clinton
• Don’t worry, be happy. It’s in the bag
• Geraldine Ferraro: what is she really saying?