Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Psychologically flawed?
June 4, 2008
I have to say that my sympathies are somewhat divided in the matter of Obama v Clinton.
I’ve argued from the beginning that Obama is the better candidate and would make much the better president, though not without wavering now and then on both points. Obama’s campaign has been far from flawless. Hillary has impressed me—and who could not be impressed?—with her relentless drive. And some of her complaints about her treatment in the media have been quite justified, I think.
The commentariat’s prejudices have not run entirely Obama’s way, but he has plainly had the better of it. I still don’t buy the idea that the Clintons “played the race card”, for instance; there has been a lot of sexist sneering; the shock when she said that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated at about this point in the primary race (a crass, tone-deaf comment, but one of no large significance) was exaggerated and synthetic.
At best, let’s not forget, Obama has won by the narrowest of margins. The Clinton campaign was run with operatic incompetence from start to finish, and at a chronic financial disadvantage too—yet at the end her momentum was greater than his. On most of the different ways of counting Democratic votes (including the one I would advocate as a matter of best electoral practice: one registered Democrat, one vote) she would in fact have won this race. I prefer Obama, as I say, but I think she can feel with some justification that the will of the party’s supporters has been thwarted.
Having said all this, her performance last night was stunningly ill-judged, and speaks volumes about her fitness to lead—or lack of it. Under the circumstances, one can understand, maybe, a reluctance to concede. But to declare moral victory; to insist, knowing that she had lost, that she remains the stronger candidate; to start positioning herself to demand the VP slot as of right: all this was not just remarkably ungracious, it was also patently counter-productive from a strictly selfish point of view. Can’t she see that she has made it easier, not harder, for Obama to keep her off the ticket?
One of the CNN analysts debating Hillary’s non-concession speech mentioned emails coming in which said that Tuesday “needed to be her night.” At this one of the others spluttered, “It had to be her night? Obama just won!”… before, in a valuable moment of reckless honesty, referring to “the Clintons’ deranged narcissism”. Yes, I thought (recalling, incidentally, Alistair Campbell’s comment that Gordon Brown was “psychologically flawed”). Read her speech, and compare it with Obama’s. His extravagant (and tactically shrewd) praise of her; a speech addressed not just to the whole Democratic party but to the whole country; calculated, of course, calibrated—with nothing in it that was smug or self-regarding or sectarian. Contrast that with her perfunctory acknowledgement of him, followed by a recitation of her achievements and the obstacles that had been put in her way: Enough about our nominee, this is my night and I want to talk about me.
Something tells me that she is not cut out to be Obama’s deputy. If he puts her on the ticket, I think he will be making a big mistake.
Hillary has demonstrated the same psychological flaws as the late Richard Nixon.
Selecting Hillary as his running mate would prove a catastrophe for Obama.
With Hillary and Bill sharing the same space, there wouldn’t be oxygen enough left in the White House to breathe.
They both would be looking over his shoulders and second-guessing him.
Most importantly, Obama’s greatest strengths are freshness and thoughtfulness, he has a kind of grace, very rare qualities in an American national politician.
Hillary is tired stuff, a bitter, old-school pol. Her husband, despite all the superficial charm, is genuinely sleazy. Their presence would cast a shadow across Obama’s administration before he even got started.
Obama has an intelligent, educated, independent-minded wife too. She will shine, and the last thing she needs is checking over her shoulder for Hillary.
Obama needs to pick a white, well-educated woman for his running mate, someone genuinely suitable to be president. There are today lots of them in America.
A few weeks after he’s done that, Hillary will be forgotten. I doubt she’ll ever have a national presence again. She has demonstrated a truly unpleasant character, but then we should have known that because she’s lived with her ethically bankrupt husband for thirty years.
I think the best Hillary could do is work towards taking on the Edward Kennedy role in the Senate. He will be missed. But even this is not going to be easy. She has offended many.
I don’t think many British readers would understand the nature of the office of Vice President.
There is no work, none.
The only defined role in the American Constitution is to cast a tie-breaking vote in the Senate.
It is the most useless job on the planet, as several past vice presidents, and notably John Adams, have said.
It gives an ambitious person a lot of time to kill and the potential any day to create problems with publicity and leaks.
In recent times, the vice president has been given a ceremonial role abroad to “fill in” for the president when the matter is less than important.
The repulsive Dick Cheney has been unlike any other vice president in history. He is the de facto, “closet” president, Bush being a weak character and an obtuse one too. This is unlikely ever to be repeated.
Any strong person in the vice president’s role rankles. Johnson was unbelievably angry with the Kennedy brothers. They just ignored him, and he had an ego the size of Hillary’s.
More than one observer after the assassination of Kennedy believed Johnson was involved for this reason. There was a play written not long after called “MacByrd,” MacBeth reworked. And there are several serious analyses of his possible involvement.
Hillary has not been treated more unfairly than Obama. Plenty of people have called Obama names, insinuated nasty things about him, and questioned his motives. He has suffered through idiocy like flag pins, Reverend Wright, and reaction to his lovely wife’s honest remarks. Clinton joined in on much of this crap.
And I do think you are incorrect about the race card. Clinton is well known, behind the scenes, to have attempted to influence super-delegates with a line about black Obama having no appeal to the White Flight crowd (America’s term for whites who fled blacks in the cities and first-tier suburbs after the Civil Rights Act). It was an ugly use of race, likely the ugliest of her many questionable statements.
Her ego may be measured by idiotic claims like being under fire in Bosnia, a complete fabrication covered by nonsense about being tired (when you are tired, hidden truth is more likely than fabrication).
She also plainly blew her campaign. She was originally the leader. She underestimated her competition and used some very poorly considered tactics. This is anything but proof of her judgment.
But the most glaring measure of her ego is her complete lack of grace in losing. She should have gracefully conceded and encouraged support for the party’s candidate - that is the way it is done.
But not by Hillary. We have to be kept in suspense with her breathing hard in the background. The moment was not his, it wasa hers. Just awful.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | June 4th, 2008 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentClive you are spot on. Hillary’s speech last night lacked the most simplest of humility. Right from when she was Introduced as the next president of The United States;
Much as she has been a great candidate and quite formidable too. Her dama speech yesterday shows me she can’t fathom reality. Let alone be a good leader for United States of America. She is just a brute, egoistic, selfish, naive, person.
I reckon the world today needs someone who can do better.
Posted by: steven | June 4th, 2008 at 6:23 pm | Report this commentIt seems like a bittersweet ending to a bitter campaign. No huge drama, just a whispering end to hostilities. You are right, a very weak victory for Obama, reminiscent of Bush- Gore in 2000. In the end, he needed the superdelegates in order to clench the nomination. In the end, he needed the unrepresentative caucus victories. In the end, he lost the popular vote.
This is the end. My only friend, the end. — The Doors.
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | June 4th, 2008 at 7:34 pm | Report this commentI think alot has been said about Clinton’s actions and unguarded utterances during this campaign. Unfounately, she tried blaming Obama for these misspeaking and sometimes outrightly weird behaviours. Using the VP now as a baragining chip only goes to butress the selfishness of the campaign she ran;ultimately, it was Mrs Clinton and not the people. Not conceding defeat… well, what did you expect?
Posted by: Awa Ikoro | June 4th, 2008 at 8:32 pm | Report this commentI could not agree more with Clive Crook’s last two sentences. Also, all the blame directed against the supposed mistakes made by Hillary Clinton’s campaign, or its managers, makes one just a little suspicious. Was not putting her (and her oversized ego) forward as a candidate the biggest mistake of all?
My prediction is that Senator Obama will not be foolish enough to let himself be pressured into putting Senator Clinton on his ticket, no matter what she may or may not threaten to do with regard to her supporters. After all, even though they voted for her, that doesn’t mean that she owns them, although this is something that she may find it difficult to see from her self-centered perspective.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | June 4th, 2008 at 9:04 pm | Report this commentHillary was a Queen that raised her ire at the end when her re-coronation became threatened.
SHe had the wrong message for this year, even though she practiced micro-targeting at the end for good effect.
Obama’s achievement is a David and Goliath story, and his only weapon were his ideas and conviction. Even african-americans would have run away from him if he lost credibility through the process as they have run away from black candiates of the past.
Very interestingly, he has not attacked back at Hillary throoughout this process, and it must be a very shrewd and wise strategy, because he has taken quite a beating on that from her.
Posted by: TR | June 4th, 2008 at 9:27 pm | Report this commentYou have to love the raging naiveté of Obama’s devotees (which, incidentally, can in no way be attributed to their chosen candidate), their endless sermons about the egoism, the selfishness, the lack of presumed decency, nay, the brutality of the opponent, and, Good God, their cast the first stone self righteousness. The wicked witch of the east is finished and still they moan like whiny munchkins where gloating might be more to the point. What’s wrong with these people, pundits included? Why don’t they scurry on to McCain already? It’s this kind of wishful rewriting of the basic human code, with its frailties and failings, its measure of viciousness, that makes democrats so farcical to conservatives. Their visceral dislike of Clinton is properly addressed on the shrink’s couch. In the meantime, they would do well to ponder John Judis’s piece on Obama and racism in The New Republic.
Obama won fair and square, through better organization and canny strategy, the basic tools of POLITICS. That Clinton who thought herself entitled (wrongly) should be mad as hell is, oh surprise, understandable. That she would struggle to accept her demise is equally so, specially given the fact of her having won the majority of the last contests. The best attitude in such a case is allow the loser the space and the time to return to her senses. Besides, the Clintons are nothing if not political and I expect her to barter her popularity with a large chunk of the electorate into something tangible for her future. Is that selfish? Well, so what? Or, actually, perhaps this is precisely what is at stake in this election: the exact value of selfishness. Haven’t we been told, for decades now, that selfishness, given that we operate in a free market economy, is a guarantor of the best effects, while the road to mediocrity is paved with good intentions. Maybe Obama is the man to disprove thirty years of conservative orthodoxy, the one to show us that taxes are as good as spinach.
Posted by: Silenos | June 4th, 2008 at 9:37 pm | Report this commentI believe that your conclusion on Senator Clinton is deadly accurate. I have noted in my almost universally unread web site from the outset, that her consuming ambition would do her in. Her’s is not the Hubert Humphrey “fire in the belly.” It is patholigal.
Posted by: FRANCIS X HEALY JR | June 4th, 2008 at 9:49 pm | Report this comment“Obama’s achievement is a David and Goliath story, and his only weapon were his ideas and conviction”, never mind the $300 Million that he has spent on his “grassroots” campaign, only to still be getting trounced by a badly damaged Hillary Clinton in states such as South Dakota.
The only David in the Obama story is master lobbyist David Axelrod.
Posted by: John Powers | June 4th, 2008 at 9:51 pm | Report this comment“Spot on”–I agree point on point.
Hillary’s exceptional competency was, in Clintonesque form, again undermined by their obsession with power. “What does Hillary want? What does she want?” she called out last night. The wrong question then, before and now.
I am amongst those whose early confidence in Obama has been shaken by accounts of his (and his wife’s) relationships to Wright and Farrakhan. I am also disturbed by signs that his campaign will steer him now into Faustian pacts that will bind him to the failed policies he promised to rethink. It is unclear that his character is up to the job. I feel as though I am watching “The Apprentice”, except that I am clueless as to who is sitting in the highest backed chair.
Nonetheless, Obama v McCain poses a new dilemma. Will an ageing, not-so-clever old soldier’s whiteness be a winning factor? I still hope not. The Republicans’ selection process has arguably served the US voters less well than that of the Democrats.
Posted by: WCM | June 4th, 2008 at 10:15 pm | Report this comment““Obama’s achievement is a David and Goliath story, and his only weapon were his ideas and conviction”, never mind the $300 Million that he has spent on his “grassroots” campaign, only to still be getting trounced by a badly damaged Hillary Clinton in states such as South Dakota.
The only David in the Obama story is master lobbyist David Axelrod.”"
His average donation was less than $100. Again, he had no institutional backing whatsoever.
Clinton apart from a very popular president as husband, had virtually the entire democratic machine in place for her.
She also pressed every button she could to gain advantage in the end, even going as far as to reject the unanimous views of 200 economists on her gas plan; this from a a very-well educated New York senator. She was willing to fight, but it appeared more about her own position than policy and platforms.
Give Obama credit for picking his advisors.
Posted by: TR | June 4th, 2008 at 10:27 pm | Report this commentA very down to earth speech and it shows that HILLARY CLINTON is concerned by all the aspects in life, no matter how small they are. Health, working conditions, children, third age citizens, religion, whether they are jews, catholics etc., from all ages, no matter their economical conditions, ALL CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS AT THE TIME OF VOTING. She is trying to make people understand that for her respect and rights to all citizens, are the basis of a DEMOCRACY. She is fighting for that, to restore the real AMERICAN DEMOCRACY.
All votes should be counted, like it happens in democratic countries all over the world, that is where Democracy stands.
Her speech talks about principles in life that are very important and a US citizen should guide its life on the basis of principles and ALSO teach their children the importance of respect, since a younger age and the basis of religion which forms a person since a younger age, until it becomes an adult. This makes a human being stronger and makes a country proud. TO BECOME PROUD OF THE DEMOCRACY that should exist in the United States.
That is what Hillary Clinton is demonstrating in this campaign, not only to the United States but to the world that watches her very closely: To fight to the end, UNTIL IN A DEMOCRATIC WAY WE KNOW “who is best prepared to finally become the Democrat candidate in the US elections, at the Convention in August”, with NO VEILS TO COVER IT, very transparent, so as NOT TO DISCOURAGE DEMOCRATS TO LEAVE THE PARTY, because the Superdelegates did not know how to handle this situation in a very Democratic way.
When the DNC committee voted to restore the delegations of both Florida and Michigan at the party’s nominating convention, but gave each delegate only half a vote, THERE IS A QUESTION that stays in the minds of the American people and future voters. Are FLORIDA VOTERS NOW CONSIDERED by the Democrats “CITIZENS OF SECOND CLASS”, with the decision that the DNC has taken, in splitting in half their right to vote for Florida.
How about the other delegations representing the rest of States in the United States of America. Are they NOW considered citizens of “FIRST CLASS”, as they will have a complete vote at the Party’s Nominating Convention. WHAT KIND OF A DEMOCRACY IS THIS, where the voice of the voters do not count. A group of 30 people (the DNC) decides what is right and what is wrong.
Also it is time for the Democratic Party AT THE CONVENTION, to accept that the DNC system does not work in a fair way, so as to represent the national vote which goes overwhelmingly to Hillary Clinton. What about the decision of voters. All voters of Hillary Clinton believe she should bring this issue to the CONVENTION, it is a right to defend the votes of Florida and Michigan citizens and maintain the PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY. No veils to hide the reality in democracy.
All Journalists and owners of TV chains and newspapers, should place this question before them. United States politics should be the mirror and example to the world, and thereby the news on politics should speak the truth, no veils, no overshadow the other candidate’s principles, because they want desperately for Obama to win. You cannot PUSH DEMOCRACY. The citizens that read the newspapers and watches television, see through YOUR VEIL, that wants to hide the reality. Do not think citizens are guided by the wrong information published. EACH CITIZEN HAS ITS OWN MIND, ITS OWN WAY OF THINKING, and believe me there are lots of citizens with STRONG PRINCIPLES, AND THAT IS WHY HILLARY CLINTON SHOULD BRING IT TO THE CONVENTION.
At this stage we believe that a lot of stories are filtered by the Obama’s staff, a generation with no principles, only with the spirit to confuse voters, with an only purpose of gain this election, no matter at what price. When we citizens look back at the past days: WE SHOULD QUESTION OURSELVES whether it was also a timely decision of Obama to leave his Christian church. To most citizens WHO HAVE A CHURCH AND FEELS STRONG ABOUT IT: think this does not sound real at all; why Obama did not leave his church INMMEDIATELY, if he is a man of principles, he should have done it inmediately and in a very discreet way. Not making it know by speaking about it on television: everything counts IN THIS ELECTIONS!!!! What about faith, church, principles that American people have; respect in these elections.
Where is Democracy going in the United States if it does not respect “principles and their citizens’ votes”, that is what really counts. Hope the Superdelegates have a moment to reflect on this, and at the CONVENTION finally PUTS THE VEIL ASIDE, and speak what really concerns them, which is THE POPULAR VOTE IN THIS ELECTION, and who is the best candidate to become President of the United States of America, who can beat the Republicans.
One last example: Read the recent comments of Jimmy Carter to The Guardian a British publication regarding Hillary Clinton as a possible VP candidate to join Obama:
“..If you take that 50 percent who just don’t want to vote for Clinton and add it to whatever element there might be who don’t think Obama is white enough or old enough or experienced enough or because he’s got a middle name that sounds Arab, you could have the worst of both worlds,…”.
What AMERICAN CITIZENS need to accept is reality, Obama is a Kenya descendant and his family (grandmother, father, cousins etc.) come from Nyangoma-Kogel in Kenya. His middle name Hussein is an Arab name, very commonly used in Arab countries. There is no way of changing the truth, he was raised partly in Indonesia when he was young, with his mother and stepfather Lolo Soetoro. There is no such a thing “…as a middle name that sounds Arab…” as Jimmy Carter claims.
The truth always prevails and Americans should not feel unconfortable to ONE DAY POSSIBLY HAVE A KENYAN DESCENDANT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. That is where the reality falls. Already people from Kenya, called Hussein Obama, his brother, as they really feel he belong to them as a Kenyan descendant. See CNN News of today 4 June.
Posted by: gaby43 | June 4th, 2008 at 10:59 pm | Report this commentIt’s a surprise to see an FT columnist parrotting a CNN pundit paid to fill time….
I have to wonder when this deliberate attempt to misunderstand Clinton will end. If Clinton had instantly conceded, she would have antagonised the 18 million people who voted for her (not to mention her backers), and risked alienating them from the Obama presidential bid. She is, as we speak, working to transfer those allegiances, thereby demonstrating once again through action rather than words that she is a responsible and reliable Democrat.
And on the VP slot - it is extraordinary to watch gum-flapping pundits attempt to deny Clinton the VP slot, on the assumption - and perhaps because of the assumption - that she wants it.
Hillary Clinton’s stature has been permanently enhanced by this primary campaign. She has proven herself, indisputably, as a formidable politician and a deeply impressive person. For someone of Clinton’s stature, there will be many significant opportunities, some of which will almost certainly be far better suited to her own objectives and goals than the VP slot.
Posted by: S. | June 5th, 2008 at 4:08 am | Report this commentWhat’s with all the Clinton bashing. Can’t she just be human? Gosh I admire her for contiuning on after all the things that you talentless”Bloggers” say about her to make money. She has broken all sorts of records. Keeo praising Obama and refusing to look at his faults. That’s what we did to Bush after 911 and see what we got in return.
Posted by: Shawn | June 5th, 2008 at 5:34 am | Report this commentHillary and her husband have long taken narcissism to a new level. Accordingly, her speech last night followed suit. There is nothing genuine about the Clintons, only their lust for power and personal gain. They are typical yuppies. Mistakes are never their fault. Their angry utterances when they do not get their way are lamely dismissed by them along the lines of, “Oops, I misspoke.” The Clintons are a disgrace to the country and the world at large. I hope we are rid of them for good.
Posted by: Dave DelVal | June 5th, 2008 at 6:23 am | Report this commentI am a Republican, but all the same, I believe that George W. Bush is the worst thing that ever happened to the United States. I view John McCain as being nothing but a lackey committed to continuing Bush’s failed policies, both at home and abroad. McCain is an angry, unbalanced, out-dated man who changes views at the drop of a hat. He is about as much of a “maverick” as Doodles Weaver.
Barrack Obama seems like a good man. I believe him to be someone of character and backbone. I hope this is whom he turns out to be. The citizens of the United States are in need of a leader, someone virtuous, but nonetheless strong. It has been almost 40 years to the day since Robert Kennedy was killed. The US has yet to recover from that killing. Perhaps Obama can assume the mantle that was RFK’s promise to seek a better world. I hope so.
Oh, and one last thing, the Boston Celtics will defeat the Los Angeles Lakers in six games.
Go Green!
“attempt to deny Clinton the VP slot”? This election really is being seen in terms of reality TV.
Posted by: WCM | June 5th, 2008 at 7:06 am | Report this commentI am a bit tired of hearing the “Hillary won the popular vote” comment. I have yet to see anyone demonstrate that this is actually true without the caveats that a) the numbers are based on the obviously mistaken assumption that NO ONE in Michigan would have voted for Obama if they had the chance, and b) that there are no reliable popular vote counts for states that held caucuses and not primaries. Not acknowledging those two crucial facts is, in my opinion, making the exactly same kind of error as Hillary’s supporters imply is being made by not making her the nominee.
(And please note I am not a die-hard Obama supporter, just someone who wants to see the Republicans out of the White House.)
Posted by: Mitch M | June 5th, 2008 at 7:52 am | Report this commentDave Delval has written an excellent post, one which says it better than anything else I have read, including my own (in favor of which I am slightly biased, for some reason). Watching Hillary’s recent campaign speeches, her Tuesday night “non-concession” speech and even the snippet of the AIPAC speech in which she purported to praise Obama’s support of Israel, I was struck, more than anything else, by the raw anger in Hillary’s expression. There was little or none of the humility, realism and understandable disappointment that most losing candidates show.
If Obama were to let her join his ticket, she would do everything possible to sabotage his campaign by whatever means. At best, she would bring a huge amount of both her own and Bill’s baggage that would sink Obama’s campaign.
Her presence on the ticket would be a real Trojan Horse in service of McCain, whom Mr. DelVal accurately describes as a lackey for Bush.
No one would be able to control her, and even less so Bill. The entire campaign story would be only about disputes between the Obama and Clinton factions on the ticket, giving McCain the same sort of free pass that he has had during the primaries.
It says everything that Hillary’s strongest supporters had to drive her out of the campaign, kicking and screaming. As even Murdoch’s far right wing New York Post pointed out in its editorial Wednesday, Hillary has done good work in the Senate. Let her stay there.
As for Bill, the Clinton administration was great for America in the ’90’s. But the Clinton era has passed. The sooner that he and Hillary can accept this, the better for the Democratic party and for America.
Roger Algase
Posted by: algasema | June 5th, 2008 at 8:04 am | Report this commentObama is an internet start-up. The tech geeks have tasted the next generation of propaganda tactics. The military draft, a statist slavery of it’s citizens, may not be too far away. This bunch may be totally blind to the irony when it happens on their watch. The selling of the military draft will be just another marketing assignment to these geeks as was the selling of BHO to the Democratic Party and the nation in Nov.
Posted by: Tsky | June 5th, 2008 at 11:36 am | Report this commentIn amongst all the political concerns, and regardless of where one stands, is it not rather encouraging that Obama has prevailed in significant part because he is a much better speaker than Clinton?
I was told endlessly as a child and have read many comments since bemoaning the low standard and insignificance of modern oratory; but perhaps we are really seeing a change?
Posted by: Will Stewart | June 5th, 2008 at 2:25 pm | Report this comment“His average donation was less than $100. Again, he had no institutional backing whatsoever”
What PR Sop…more than 50% of his donations were at the top end. Obama counted selling buttons and keychains as donations..no one else did, making his average nearer the low end.
And no institutional backing? How about the Teamsters, AFSCME, CNN, Monday Night Football, MSNBC, a slew of investment bankers, the Daley Machine, ComEd, the United Church of Christ, the radical wing of the Roman Catholic Church just to name a few?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | June 5th, 2008 at 4:23 pm | Report this commentjust because cnn and msnbc see the truth doesnt make them obama operatives
Posted by: Sade | June 6th, 2008 at 12:36 am | Report this commentI agree with you, Clive. Hillary botched things badly this week.
Posted by: James Canning | June 6th, 2008 at 12:37 am | Report this comment“”What PR Sop…more than 50% of his donations were at the top end. Obama counted selling buttons and keychains as donations..no one else did, making his average nearer the low end.
And no institutional backing? How about the Teamsters, AFSCME, CNN, Monday Night Football, MSNBC, a slew of investment bankers, the Daley Machine, ComEd, the United Church of Christ, the radical wing of the Roman Catholic Church just to name a few?
JBP”"
Leave aside the donations, he did not pre-arrange any of these constituencies. Like your parent’s friends accept you for your parents, HRC started with a huge nuclueus of the backbone of the Democratic party, the governors of most states, mayors of most large cities (LA, Phi, Boston), and a certain president first name Bill. She did not have to win these over thanks to her husband.
Ultimately, the compromises she made personally to have this headstart and protection, I think cost her the candidacy because she emerged far too left and under dubious conditions.
Maybe the first woman president will be someone without these ingrained advantages to start.
Posted by: TR | June 6th, 2008 at 2:57 am | Report this commentleft = late above.
Posted by: TR | June 6th, 2008 at 2:58 am | Report this commentBil and Hillary Clinton have given politics a bad name.
Posted by: gardiner | June 6th, 2008 at 6:05 am | Report this commentTR,
Sure, but the no institutional backing statement is just a fiction written by David Axelrod to make Obama look like a grassroots candidate. Spending $300 Million on a primary is astroturfing, not grassroots.
I would also pit the support of Mayor Daley against pretty much the entire establishment of the rest of the country. The Daley Machine delivers $ and vote, and not empty promises to Sen. Obama.
Delivering anything but higher taxes and flower pots to Chicago is another story.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | June 6th, 2008 at 12:32 pm | Report this commentObama has to unite with Clinton and be prepared to face McCain supporters in ultimate fight during presidential election campaign in the US this fall.
Posted by: Viktor O. Ledenyov | June 6th, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentI wonder which candidate is “psychologically flawed” when Sen. Obama says things like
“I’m saddened by today’s verdict. This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew …” offering his sympathy to a criminal who has looted Illinois Pensions and Healthcare Facilities for years, rather than offering a condemnation of a political crime syndicate and restitution to the taxpayers who were forced to fund it.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | June 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm | Report this commentFor all those of you commenting against Clinton, here’s a comment you might find interesting from Judith Warner in the New York Times, regarding the “gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind” that has been somehow acceptable in this primary season:
“(This is) a moment in which things like the formation of a Hillary-bashing political action group, “Citizens United Not Timid,” a “South Park” episode featuring a nuclear weapon hidden in Clinton’s vagina, and Internet sales of a Hillary Clinton nutcracker with shark-like teeth between her legs, passed largely without mainstream media notice, largely, perhaps, because some of the key gatekeepers of mainstream opinion were so busy coming up with various iterations of the nutcracker theme themselves. (He) is not the first commentator to note that if similarly hateful racial remarks had been made about Obama, our nation would have turned itself inside out in a paroxysm of soul-searching and shame. Had mainstream commentators in 2000 speculated, say, that Joe Lieberman had a nose for dough, or made funny Shylock references, heads would have rolled – and rightfully so. But 16 months of sustained misogyny? Hey — she asked for it.”
Now substitute your daughter’s name, or your mother’s name, for Clinton’s in the above paragraph.
How acceptable does this sort of stuff seem now?
Posted by: S. | June 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm | Report this commentS,
In general, these charges are ridiculous. Of course, in a country as big and rich as America, there are always fringes, but you must focus on the main efforts to talk intelligently about anything.
What has been happening is that every legitimate criticism of Hillary is turned into “sexism” by some simply because she is a woman.
Geraldine Ferraro has gone off the deep end with this.
There are many out there who once were sympathetic with Mrs. Clinton when she was tormented by Republicans in the White House. I certainly was among them.
Her intelligence and hard work are well known.
But there is simply no question that in this campaign she, again and again, has abused her position and violated many of the same standards of decency the Republican abandoned against her fifteen years ago.
Her exit is a disgrace. She tried to make the winner’s day her own. She stalked off stage snorting and growling like a wounded animal, everyone waiting on her whim. That just is not done in national politics.
She takes four days to properly concede and promise support. Just shameful.
And there is no question some in Hillary’s crowd played the race card. There is a new report today from New Jersey about how her representative was calling and playing up the idea of Obama’s not going down with White voters.
Hillary herself was quoted talking about the White Flight crowd not going for Obama.
Ferraro made an openly racist remark.
The sense of entitlement we see in Hillary’s reaction and that of some of her supporters cannot be dignified as being outraged feminism. It is just a new version of America’s spoiled-brat syndrome: I want it all and I want it now.
You are a woman, you run, ipso facto, you are entitled to win. Even though you made many mistakes. Even though you dragged your dinosaur husband into the campaign to make them worse. Even though you rather arrogantly underestimated your opposition and used faulty tactics. Even though you tried to change the rules agreed at the beginning ex post facto.
Only Hillary is responsible for her defeat. Saying anything else is American baby-culture, blame-anybody-but-me whining. Haven’t we had enough of that for eight years?
Truly, some of what we hear makes you wonder whether America is even capable of rationally governing itself.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | June 6th, 2008 at 8:14 pm | Report this commentJohn,
Very good.
Posted by: TR | June 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm | Report this commentDitto.
Posted by: algasema | June 6th, 2008 at 9:35 pm | Report this commentJohn, these are not fringes, and this isn’t whining. This is hate language. And it’s been spewed out by mainstream commentors on mainstream media, used as a political tool to distort the democratic process.
Why you and others are so reluctant to acknowledge this as hate language, consider its consequences, and condemn it out of hand is something I can only speculate about. You should know, however, that Clinton’s supporters will now not support Obama, simply because Democratic Party leaders failed to take a stand against this disgusting language.
The Dems deserve to lose. They chose the wrong candidate in a rigged election that betrayed their base. They also antagonised, quite possibly permanently, half the popular vote. One thing’s certain, though, Clinton will come out of this smelling like roses - while all those trash throwers remain stuck in the dumpster, hurling garbage at one another.
Posted by: S. | June 6th, 2008 at 10:25 pm | Report this comment