Arkansas Blog

Calls for Hillary to step aside would have more merit if they hadn't been played over and over and over for months. And, if the refrain comes from Obama's camp...

Calls for Hillary to stay in would have more merit if she was doing ANYTHING positive at all with her campaign. If she was using it to make things better in ANY way at all, if she was using the campaign to unite rather than divide, if she was using the campaign to further the Democratic party's agenda and hopes in the fall, then calls for her to stay in would make sense. But, since her campaign is about HER and HER ONLY and the entire objective of her campaign is to split the party, the calls for her to step aside do have merit. She can't with without getting them to change the rules at the last second, which they won't do.

.............and Obama's campaign is about himself and ditto McCain's - that's what candidates do for heaven's sake! Since when was it illegal, immoral unamerican for Hillary to point out why she thinks she is the best candidate? Why is everyone else allowed to play every card in the deck while Hillary's every word is scrutinized and manipulated by the media and Obama's supporters to find some element of something racist or unAmerican in her words.

Good grief!

Didn't you know, Ci.Ci, that from day one Hilllary's campaign has been all about her. She's out to win and will do anything to win. Then there's her racist minions who are always pointing out how the black vote is going to Obama. Evil bitch. Good thing the other candidates are in it for the good of civilization and run their campaigns according to the Good Guy's Guide to Nice Campaigning.

Good grief is right.

I voted for Sen. Clinton because I believed she would make the better president, although I think Sen. Obama will do well. And even now, I attribute her staying in the fray (seemingly mortgaging her political future to bet on a longshot) to a principled belief that Sen. Obama's ever-expanding weakness among middle class and southern whites will almost certainly cost the Democrats the white house.

But she and her advisors do not seem to have weighed sufficiently another virtual certainty: As anyone who is a serious participant in African-American communal thought and discussion can tell you, a decision by superdelegates to give the nomination to Sen. Clinton would have seismic, and perhaps generational, negative repercussions for the longstanding relationship between black voters and the party. Some of those who suggest the wounds could be healed by fall have not spent a lifetime with race perceived as the defining characteristic of their existence.

Ultimately, the risk of losing a chance to reclaim the White House may seem relatively small next to the *risk* of leaving one of the party's most loyal constituencies feeling a deep sense of betrayal -- and losing the White House anyway.

I understand what you're saying, TAP, and that does seem to be the conventional wisdom about the super delegates/African-American community. But what about my deep sense of betrayal? As one of those middle-aged white women I feel like, once again, womens' rights/gains are being subjugated to the MORE IMPORTANT needs/desires of others. And I'm not the only woman feeling this way. It's as if the nomination is being used as compensation for slavery/decades of discrimination; and to argue against Obama's nomination is the same as saying racism is OK. But it's no big deal to ask a woman to step aside and wait her turn. It feels like blackmail because if Hillary was ahead of Obama by the numbers that he's ahead of her, the role of the super delegates would be a different discussion.

The sad thing is, I started out equally supportive of Obama/Hillary; and actually believed that Obama would shake up DC more than Hillary...which tickled me pink. But right now, I'm having to...let's just say it's a good thing my disgust with the Republican Party outweighs my disgust with the Democratic Party. But if Obama doesn't include Hillary somehow...if he doesn't act as magnanimous as he talks...I won't be happy when I vote for him and I certainly won't be passionate about his campaign.

Right or wrong, this is how I feel.

Zelda,

It's not my place (and of course you didn't ask me to) to say whether you're right or wrong, but I understand and mostly agree. Where we differ, I guess, is that I believe that if Hillary were ahead of *any* man by Barack's numbers, and yet the superdelegates refused to give her the nomination, many women and men (including me) would feel a deep sense of betrayal and would reach the bitterly disappointing conclusion that the superdelegates took that course because she is a woman.

jay cost of realclearpolitics horseraceblog makes a very good argument, and more importantly also adds the counter-argument.

HRC victories are probable, thus the questions become turnout, margins, and media coverage.

it would take massive turnout and arkansas-like margins to secure enough media coverage to turn around the narrative. which may well explain why Madame has emphasized "working-class, white voters" since her 6May debacle.

can it be done? i'd say less than 10% chance of success.

plus, the perception of it being more "negative" campaigning will keep HRC's disapproval poll numbers from receding, while costing her/them even more money.

i expect the media will treat her coming victories as a farewell bow and bestow upon her the prize for "Miss Congeniality" (ironic)

As a middle aged white woman as well, I might feel betrayed if Hillary was a candidate who got there on her own. In reality, since being accepted to Yale Law School, everything since then has been because she married Bill -- and has put up with his other women. She is no feminist and never has been.

Tap, I agree that it would destroy the party if the super delegates jerked the rug out from under Obama, but that does not change the fact that his baggage grows daily, and anything can happen between now and Nov. How silly would Hillary look if she had bowed out weeks ago as many suggested and Obama were to totally implode in late May? I don't want her to contribute to his negatives and I wish she would direct her negatives toward McCain, but it comforts me as a Democrat who likes both these candidates, that she is still active. I'm just not as comfortable as some of my fellow Dems that the Wizard of Oz has presented us with a 'can't lose' Obama. I've never been more worried about my party than today and my worries are not all caused by Hillary.

Senator Clinton holds on hoping the Ayers matter will garner more attention early rather than later. Patriotism perceptions will be a major focus of Republicans against BHO in the fall. See Novak's recent column at my name.

Novak Link didn't work. Here it is.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/07/AR2008050703187.html

"his baggage grows daily"

No it doesn't. This is just some garbage that the Clinton campaign has started and her biggest supporters like Matt Drudge, Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly have been peddling. The fact of the matter is Hillary's baggage is what has held her back. Anyone who thinks that a Hillary nomination wouldn't result a long, painful trip down memory lane into Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle Futures, The Rose Law Firm and impeachment is fooling themselves. Hell, just yesterday the Washington Times (one of the two big mouthpieces of the great Right Wing Conspiracy Machine, the other being Hillary's good friends at Fox News) had a story about "new revelations" about Whitewater. That's what the entire general election campaign would be. Not to mention any new "scandals" they could drum up concerning Bill and any bimbos they can connect him to since he left the White House.

"...She is no feminist and never has been."--Polecat

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. By your standards, polecat, no woman who ever forgave a cheating spouse and/or married a man more outwardly successful than her would qualify as a feminist...which pretty much eliminates most American women. Hillary was successful before she met Bill and her professional/personal history is replete with womens' causes.

It always amazes me that the biggest critics of Hillary, besides the rabid Republicans, are women. Heck, the biggest critics of feminism in general are women. But I understand that one a little better than the former.

You're probably right about that, TAP. Guess I'm just wishing Obama was a black woman!

I really do think if we remain calm everything will work out between the Obama and Clinton camps. I too will choke if Hillary gets to the White House via super anything other than a super total of the votes. I swear they make things up with every new election cycle and then try to make us believe they've been around for years. Super delegates my ass! It's not an American sounding idea that the Democratic Party would have a class of voters somehow elevated above you and me. Sounds plumb Republican!

Like I did in 2000 and 2004, I want the person with the most votes to be the winner.....period! I have to admit I've seen better campaigns for dog catcher than the one Hillary has mounted. Thick headed and dull and staged and slightly menacing at times....what happened to the Clintons? Hillary comes across like that 4 eyed girl that always ran for class president in high school. As much as I've been for her, I can't remember a time her words moved me......moved my bowels a few times, but that's a different subject.

But us home folks know Hillary isn't a gifted speaker like Bill or Barack....she's no Barbara Jordan either. But even if her delivery sucks, her speech writers could have been a whole lot better. It's entirely possible she'd remain an uninspiring speaker and yet turn out to be the next FDR in a dress. I don't think we'll ever know now. I still want the Clintons on the America Recovery Team....but not by hook or crook or super delegate. Remain seated with your chairs in the upright position.....I think we'll be alright by this time next month.

"...Anyone who thinks that a Hillary nomination wouldn't result a long, painful trip down memory lane into Whitewater, Travelgate, Cattle Futures, The Rose Law Firm and impeachment is fooling themselves..."

So we're to hold the multi-million dollar Republican witch hunt that didn't turn up a damn thing on Hillary and only found Bill guilty of an extramarital blow job, against Hillary regardless if she was found guilty of a damn thing? Screw that. It was unfair partisan crap when it occurred and holding Hillary responsible for rabid Republicans stinks to high heavens. Now holding her responsible for her war vote, or for the Patriot Act...or for a multitude of other votes is right/fair. But I ain't giving the likes of Kenneth Starr the power to choose our candidate.

Rezko. Auchi. Obama. We just don't know yet.

Zelda has a point about the state of women.
In 2008, were hundreds of African-Americans as children forced to have sex with adult men as a religious experience, living a brainwashed existence, taught to never raise their voice and to "always be sweet," even in the face of having their abused, isolated, and emotionally damaged children taken away from them? And did they live this way for years, for decades, cut off completely from the world outside, with no hope of rescue by people and government who knew what was happening and did nothing? Not 1808, but 2008. This year.

No. But hundreds of women were, and are. A woman who is not "always sweet" is frequently called a bitch or worse, usually when said sweetness would be detrimental to her well-being and someone else is not getting what they want.

It's ok to call Hillary a bitch, but the N-word is anathema. Both labels encourage easy dismissal of the person to which they are applied. Other words not specifically tied to gender or race would be more informative and accurate.

I remember when Bill was first governor, how seemingly progressive people their age complained about Hillary's lack of fashion sense. Then when Bill ran for President, seemingly progressive people were relieved when the consultants changed her "look," since her previous image would have doomed Bill to failure. One of those changes was blonde hair.
Hillary may or may not be a feminist, but she appears to be a realist.

Hillary a feminist?? Name one "feminist" in America today who raises enormous amounts of money for a pro federalist judge anti choice Dems like Mark Pryor? Hillary's support of Mark tipped the Supremes in the worst EXTREME direction in modern history.

Name one Democrat who has had high negatives as consistently as Hillary?

Name the Democrat who is consistently speaking down to all of us while race baiting "white "blue collar" Americans". over and over again.

If Barack repeated the Black or African American meme ten percent as often as Hillary repeats "white" their would be white riots in the streets by now.

Name one feminist in America who would have voted to send our troops to needless genocide or death in Iraq and never apologize for it?

"Hillary a feminist?? Name one "feminist" in America today who raises enormous amounts of money for a pro federalist judge anti choice Dems like Mark Pryor? Hillary's support of Mark tipped the Supremes in the worst EXTREME direction in modern history."--Eureka

Good grief, eureka, there's no such thing as a perfect anything. Feminists, like every other group, are a mixture of everything from a Gloria Steinem to an average stay-at-home mom. At its core feminism is about fighting for gender equality at work, at home and anywhere else that women are treated as inferior to their male counterparts. And laying blame for the makeup of today's Supreme Court on Hillary's doorstep is over the top...even for Hillary haters.

As to the rest of your loaded questions/remarks...they remind me of the old trick question asking whether someone has quit beating his wife. Just answering them as you've presented em gives em more credence than I'm willing to do. Plus, I've already criticized Obama's campaign more than I wanted to do...so I'll just disagree with your black/white stuff and leave it alone.

While I realize that anything said for either Obama or Hillary is going to be met with some sort of vitriolic response, I note that people say "my party" for the Democrats. We need to get back to "our party" and dance with the one that brung us (a rather sophomoric way to put it, but there you are). It is not the "democrats" we need to worry about--and by that I mean those of us who know that we will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what because we can't stomach the thought of McCain and the roboright for another four years.

We need to worry about people I know such as family members, work associates, my hairdresser, etc. who have stated that they will not vote for Obama. (these people may not be avowed democrats but people who "vote for the person they like best" or identify with most). They do not like him because of inexperience, the Wright controversy and (yes, I know castigate me) his wife's comment that for the first time in america she is proud of our country. Wait, Eureka, JD, etc. before you start in on me--I am merely stating the facts as they have been presented to me and saying we need to have a different focus.

The purpose of my post is to say: it is not each other we need to convince, it is the people who remember the pre-bush McCain, the one who was a maverick and not tied to the fundamentalist right wing agenda. They think he will go back to being that person instead of the McCain for the last 8 years. These are the people we need to focus on and move forward, regardless of who the nominee is (and, yes, I think it will be Obama).

Oh, but, Mr. Happy, I disagree. Obama's baggage is growing daily and not at the hands of Hillary. The only thing Hillary has said about Obama that isn't factual and I wish she hadn't said - was that McCain was more qualified than Obama. That was a big Hillary no-no, and I wish she hadn't. That little clip will be played over and over again this fall, but it will only be one part of the Obama montage of Rev. Wright clips, bitter-gate clips, and Michelle finally being proud to be an American. Get out in the public and see what the Obama is a Muslim who refuses to salute the flag is doing to his chances in Nov.

He's a good man and I will support him 100%, but I ain't gonna get fooled into blaming any of his troubles on Hillary because his problems are by and large of his own making....

While I realize that anything said for either Obama or Hillary is going to be met with some sort of vitriolic response, I note that people say "my party" for the Democrats. We need to get back to "our party" and dance with the one that brung us (a rather sophomoric way to put it, but there you are). It is not the "democrats" we need to worry about--and by that I mean those of us who know that we will vote for the democratic candidate no matter what because we can't stomach the thought of McCain and the roboright for another four years.

We need to worry about people I know such as family members, work associates, my hairdresser, etc. who have stated that they will not vote for Obama. (these people may not be avowed democrats but people who "vote for the person they like best" or identify with most). They do not like him because of inexperience, the Wright controversy and (yes, I know castigate me) his wife's comment that for the first time in america she is proud of our country. Wait, Eureka, JD, etc. before you start in on me--I am merely stating the facts as they have been presented to me and saying we need to have a different focus.

The purpose of my post is to say: it is not each other we need to convince, it is the people who remember the pre-bush McCain, the one who was a maverick and not tied to the fundamentalist right wing agenda. They think he will go back to being that person instead of the McCain for the last 8 years. These are the people we need to focus on and move forward, regardless of who the nominee is (and, yes, I think it will be Obama).

Sorry for the double post, the first time I attempted to post, it took me to an error page. Apologies to all.

Agreed sam.. One good thing is Obama has never expected to win states like Arkansas in Nov. But the issue does need addressing everywhere to various degrees. Addressing the "No we can't!" loudmouths like team Clinton, is rightfully the first order of business for the party now, imo. Clinton is doing Rove McCain's work for them...and it must stop, no matter what. We need all of July, August, September and October to circumvent the McCain GOP loving media and get our message out!

zelda, that is one of the most truly bizarre replies I have ever read from you.. How and why you are willing to remove Hillary and Marks culpability in re his senate votes /cutting off effective Dem fights / blocks of numerous egregious confirmations... really puzzles me. You really do need to study the events during the nominations.. this is a hard pill to swallow but it is very important that we face each weakness and all affronts on court and other nominations. Hillary and her support of Mark is as important a weak spot as any other i can find this side of Joe Lieberman.

I am not asking for perfection, nor am I willing to ignore recorded failure from a person who never seems to correct failures.. She is still supporting and relying on Mark now. That's dangerous hypocritical feminism at best on her part.... and disaster for all of us from the DOJ to many many courts.

Would Mark Pryor be in the senate today if the Clintons stood up and simply said we love Mark but cannot endorse nor raise bucket loads of campign funds for an anti choice candidate for the United States Senate?

The one area of feminism I pointed out was CHOICE.. and you simply ignored it. I am male and i am a feminist. I get it.. do you?

As for the trick questions.. you ignore the facts .. Hillary is still promoting anti choice Mark, still promoting needless war with Iran and still repeating but, but, white people, white people.. She has not stopped doing anything i pointed out above.

I did not mean to suggest that it would serve any useful purpose to compare the suffering of women against that of African-Americans.

I believe that if the delegate totals of the candidates were reversed the party would not dare risk imposing a detour or roadblack on Sen. Clinton's path to history, not even for an equally historic candidate. Whether Sen. Clinton's or Sen. Obama's delegate lead were disregarded, I believe the backlash from those who identified with the candidate who had the nomination "taken" from her/him would be immediate, substantial, and long-lasting.

Sorry my reply struck you as bizarre, eureka; and that I didn't answer to your satisfaction. I'll try for some clarity...so at least we can agree to disagree. I'm not excusing Hillary for any of the Senate votes that enabled this war, enabled the Patriot Act and enabled torture; and I'm sure there are more that I don't agree with. But as I've stated before, I've accepted that all my representatives do things I don't agree with. If I had my way, Kucinich would be president; but that's not within my power and, like everyone else, I have to choose the lesser of many evils...to choose the candidate who offers the best hope for the things I care about (the war, the war, healthcare, choice, NO TORTURE). But mainly I want to choose the candidate who has the best chance of beating McBush in November.

The way you present this argument, Hillary, through Mark, is singlehandedly responsible for Dubya's judges...and that's ludicrous. I'm certainly no fan of Pryor but why is Hillary responsible for Mark? She is not responsible for his every action/vote just because she has supported him him. I know she's pro-choice. I know what judges Bill appointed. But, believe it or not, eureka, someone can be anti-abortion and still be a feminist. It's not the norm, for sure, but feminists come in all forms, with all sorts of beliefs...which is what I was trying to point out in my previous post. There's no litmus test for feminism...though there are usually commonalities. Hillary is a feminist.

You seem to see things/people (especially our elected reps) in black/white terms (and I'm not talking race). I, on the other hand, see people as both good/bad and that it is the totality that matters. In other words, I look at Hillary's entire life. I look at what both of them did and tried to do while he was president. I look at the differences between Bill's presidency and Monkeyboy's and find NO comparison. But most importantly, it's come down to either Obama/Hillary or McBush...so I'm not going to nitpick over everything that Obama or Hillary has done that I don't agree with. Both Hillary/Obama are light years ahead of Dubya's warmongering clone.

I strongly disagree with you about the Clintons using race...or that they are racists...good god. I strongly disagree with your assessment of Obama's campaign, as compared to Hillary's. But I will not trash/criticize Obama.

I agree with Sam - most all of us here who are Democrats will vote for the nominee regardless, but pretending the woods aren't full of people of all stripes who aren't as determined as we are to keep McCain out of office is a fool's paradise.

I'll vote for Obama and I'll talk him up and be proud of him, but I won't blame Hillary for not jumping to his defense against the Rev Wright crapola, bittergate, or the Michelle gaff. That was Obama's job to do. He didn't jump to Hillary's defense and stop the talk about racism when Bill pointed out the history of SC and I didn't blame Obama for that. I also won't blame another candidate who points out his shortcomings as long as they are factual and not made up.

For all the media hype about how tough Hillary has been, this has been a very timid campaign in my estimation and I suspect we haven't seen anything to compare with what the Republican slime machine has in store for us.

Actually it's the gray that seems to be Clintons success story..and what I despise most about their whole DLC Southern strategy support Pryor without consequences shtick.. And on issues like choice..especially during Bush II... there is no more room for fiddling.. there was no reason for AR FOB Dems to put up a anti choice candidate for US Senate (for the first time in how long?) and no reason good enough for Clintons not to object in every way. Cut off choice and a myriad of important feminist causes will domino along with it. They knew exactly where Mark stood on Choice and what that meant about the type of judges etc, he would be willing to confirm. Or they failed to do the most basic homework, again.. Either way we all lost a tremendous amount due to Marks record.

Mark would have never made it to the Senate if the Clintons had remained clear on this.

If you like the Kucinich style candidates.. why do you ardently defend the candidates who show the most contempt for progressives in the entire D party? isn't the point, to at least mold the party in the direction of candidates who appreciate the D party, not subvert it at every possible turn? Electing saboteurs is not winning, it's helping the Pryors and Republicans.

Eureka, there is much about the Clintons that I would change. I also wish they were way more liberal than they are, but they were a far cry better than Reagan, Bush and the proposed Dole. I've learned by Bush 43 (the idiot one) that it does matter who gets elected, and just because a candidate isn't perfect is not a reason to tear them down. The Clintons did a lot for the Democrats - poor, white, Black, etc., and they made me pretty proud. I wish I could have whispered a few things in their ears along the way - I would have told Bill that Monica was a no-no, and I would have told Hillary that Sadam had no WMD - we all knew it and she should have too. I guess I don't hate Mark as much as some, because as liberal as I am (and I'm all that and more), I've decided the most important thing for me is keeping conservative Republicans out of any position in government. I agree he is a jerk, but I liked his dad a lot.

The problem now, as I see it is to get a candidate who can beat McCain. I was on the fence for all these many months - much more inspired by Obama, but more comfortable with Hillary. I finally decided that despite all her flaws, Hillary had a better chance of whipping McCain up and down the block than Obama. But, it isn't going to be that way - we will have to find a way to get Obama elected however we can manage it. I'd even cheat for him if I knew how. It would be a lot easier to champion him, if his supporters didn't blame Hillary for every chughole in his path.

All the Democratic candidates were superior and two made it thru to the end. We just disagree as to which of these two great people would have a better chance. I don't want to tear Obama down and I wish you felt the same about the Clintons.

I will be sooooooo glad when it's over and we can only point out what a senile old fool McCain is and the past months will be a memory.