TNR BLOGS

July 03, 2009 | 7:55 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:37 PM
July 03, 2009 | 7:12 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM
June 29, 2009 | 9:09 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
03.06.2008
A Farewell to Hillary

Right up until the end, a part of me really wanted her to pull it off. Oh sure, I grant the Obamaniacs everything: Hillary's divisiveness, her baggage, her "likeability issue"-all fueled by her special blend of moral flexibility and arch moralism. On a good day, Hillary Clinton rubs approximately half the country the wrong way. And as her fading primary prospects made the good days ever rarer, the candidate, her team, and most particularly that unhinged husband of hers pulled a variety of stunts that reminded all of us exactly how fatiguing the Clintons can be.

Still it breaks my heart to see her laid low.

Part of it, I suspect, is the feminist within. Deep down, I believe there's a snowballs chance of a woman being elected president in my lifetime, and I'll admit to having enjoyed watching Hillary push the system. More specifically, I've always thought Hil has gotten a raw deal: Conservatives demonized her for embodying shifting cultural mores. Many of the rest of us seemed to fault her for being pricklier and less charming than her husband. He may have been grasping, rapacious, slippery, and vulgar, but he was just so effusive and homey and hard to hate (until recently--in service of her campaign, it is certain to be noted). She, on the other hand, always struck us as too obviously cold and calculating.

And yet Hillary is the one who has collected a militantly loyal circle of friends and followers over the years. It is easy to poke fun at the cultishness of Hillaryland gals, with their locked-lipped, obsessive devotion to the group's namesake. But the women themselves are an exceedingly likeable, unnervingly impressive lot, all of whom hold Hillary--and specifically her humanity--in the highest regard. For all her flaws, it says something about the much-maligned Senator Clinton that she has inspired such enduring loyalty and affection.

This is not to say that the Hillaryland family in particular hasn't been a nightmare to cover. It is the nature of the beast that journalists see the dark side of their subjects. And while chronicling the campaign's foibles, I was repeatedly accused by staff and supporters alike of being out to get their gal. (My favorite moment was when now-campaign manager Maggie Williams huffily accused me of calling her a liar--as she was blatantly lying to me about how smoothly things were going in her service as a mere "utility player" to then-campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle.) But I always got the sense that these women cared about their candidate, which made the ass-chewings more comprehensible, if not any more pleasant.

There's little doubt that it is time--arguably well past time--for Hillary to cede the field. Lingering would only damage the party in which she clearly aspires to have a future. More selfishly, I'll admit to being exhausted of listening to Hil's outraged critics imbue her every word and action with the most venal motives imagineable. (Oh my God! She must be hoping some nutjob supporter will take the RFK hint and assassinate Obama!)

But even now I am sad to see her go. Or rather, I am sad that things turned out such that she so clearly has to go. I emailed a handful of her advisors today about what they considered to be the highlights of this primary-what moments made them the proudest of their campaign or candidate. Only a few responded, and only one response stuck with me. Referring to this evening's much-discussed presser, and on the clear assumption that Hillary will concede, an advisor wrote back: "I think I will be incredibly proud of her tonight."

It's enough to make a grown woman cry. 

--Michelle Cottle

Posted: Tuesday, June 03, 2008 6:45 PM with 57 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

dsmth said:

Michelle, how would you feel about her sticking around as the VP candidate?

June 3, 2008 6:58 PM

CRS9TNR said:

So you won't have Hillary to kick around anymore.  And she's keeping the dog.

I didn't think she would get the nomination.  But I enjoyed the run.

Her Nixonian penchant for control and strained efforts at trying to be 'One of the Guys' was hilarious.  We'll miss the cackle and the pant suits.

But I take solace in knowing that she'll be back.  Older & wiser.  Strolling and a little more at ease.

The women can go back to their day jobs and their homes.  Fire up Sex & the City and enjoy a quiet weekend.  It's nice to just be the Senator from New York.  She'll have a lot to talk about.

June 3, 2008 7:00 PM

peter1943 said:

The disconnect between this story and the coverage of Clinton in The New Republic is vast.  

June 3, 2008 7:07 PM

liberal reformer said:

Hey Michelle, thanks for the support. I am a man but I think that there is more than a little sexism among the testosterone-driven aggresive Obamaphiles here at TNR Online. You are saying what I have been saying, that these people low-ball the motive of every thing Hillary does. I am routinely cited for incivility for pointing this and other hard truths out.

June 3, 2008 7:21 PM

adamvaught said:

I'm an Obama supporter tired, frustrated, furious, and sick of Sen. Clinton. But I think I'm going to print this out and save it to re-read after the wounds have healed. Maybe then it'll help me remember why I admired her so long ago.  

June 3, 2008 7:23 PM

epicciuto said:

I thought this was a lovely post, although I can't agree with it. The "moral flexibility" overrides other considerations, and I am sincerely, truly happy that she will not win the nomination after running such a campaign.

What makes me sad is that the fist serious female candidate for president was so very flawed. What makes me hopeful, however, is just how well she did. I have to disagree, as well, with your suspicion that no woman will be president in your lifetime. Isn't it impressive that even such a flawed candidate -- morally compromised, polarizing, prickly, with management problems -- did so well? I know others saw much sexism. I saw some, but MUCH less than I would have thought. She got very very far. Now, imagine a woman, smart like Hillary, as sharp a debater, as wonky, but less polarizing and less obviously Machiavellian. Given how far Hillary went, doesn't it make you think that such a woman could do it?

June 3, 2008 7:23 PM

roidubouloi said:

Somehow I think that the fact that Hillary inspires dedicated, even fanatical, loyalists ought not be taken as indication of anything positive.  There are simply too many counter-examples.  I suppose you are entitled to your valedictory address, but I think the Hillaristas have been far too dismissive of the things that more than half to the country finds objectionable about her.  It is a lot more than her style.  "Moral flexibility" is a very pleasant euphemism.

For a long time, I never gave Obama much thought.  I was only open to his candidacy because I had long since become completely repelled by Hillary Clinton.  They way she conducted her campaign only convinced me that my initial views of her were spot on, just not negative enough.

Let's just see, shall we, how gracious she is in defeat and whether she even concedes that she is defeated or merely sets the stage for the next phase of her campaign against Obama.

June 3, 2008 7:45 PM

williamyard said:

Michelle writes, "Deep down, I believe there's a snowballs chance of a woman being elected president in my lifetime..."

Rarely do I think Cottle is flat-out wrong. This is one of those times.

June 3, 2008 7:45 PM

roidubouloi said:

liberal,

You are not cited for incivility for pointing hard truths, soft truths, or any truths, indeed for any factual claims you make, few and far between as they are.  You are tagged for uncivility for being uncivil while piously lecturing everyone about civility.

June 3, 2008 7:46 PM

fougasseu said:

What is with all of the violins for Clinton?

The Republican primary was fought hard, but each one left the field with dignity.

This Democratic fiasco has been one endless embarrassment. Only now it finally ends.

Who does Clinton think she is, that she can lie, cheat, race-bait, bend and break the rules, and even now, at the end, when it's beyond a doubt that she has lost - that there is even a question that she will concede?

Who are these monsters?

This isn't Shakespearean, it's Faulknerian. Bill Clinton is Flem Snopes.

Good riddance.

June 3, 2008 7:55 PM

jet said:

Agreed with the start of epicciuto's post, but Michelle, on this line "More specifically, I've always thought Hil has gotten a raw deal:...", why should she get a pass on her past or peoples perception of her?  She's a big girl.  She knew what she was getting into and a large part of the process is overcoming those handicaps.  She didn't do that, so she loses.

That sentence should have started 'Hillary had obstacles to overcome....'.  Which works if she wins or loses.  The primary was a tough, hard fought race.  Hillary gets credit for doing her best to win, whether we liked the tactics or not.

June 3, 2008 7:56 PM

sleepyavl said:

Hey Michelle, nice article. I think it's impressive Hillary lost by a hair. She got close to 50% of the vote! Of course, Obama is the winner, but I think she amply made her point. And she did all this while the press oscillated between calumny after stupidity, between making her a murderer and would-be murderer and talking about her hair, her demeanor, her likeability, her clothes and other such bullshit from TV-addicted.

Has anyone given Obama a hard time over his clothes? Oh no, he's a man, no need to obsess over that.

She's not very "likeable" because she's not a demagogue, but is very a serious person (that, in the vocabulary of the pop culture addicts, becomes "cold and calculating"). It is precisely because she's not charming, but serious and well-prepared, that I like her - just as I liked Gore so much.

To be a good president one has to have good brains and knowledge, not good looks and florid demagoguery.

I hope she is wise enough to get out of Obama's way, wish him luck - and wait for another time, maybe 2012. It would be a big mistake of her to seek or accept to be his VP - that would mean being blamed for anything wrong with his campaign and/or his administration, while he would get the credit for anything that went well. You just have to listen to the Obamaniacs here on TNR to know that is how it would  be.

June 3, 2008 8:22 PM

roidubouloi said:

It seems that, as I hoped and predicted, Obama is indeed managing his cache of super-delegates so that the MT and SD results will put him over the top.  He is within 7 now as the polls are about to close and will surely be able to claim victory when the voting is done and the results start to come in.

Personally, I regret that he did not take the battle to WV, KY, PR, SD and MT, even though the race was over.  As long as Hillary was fighting, he should have been fighting back.  It is never a good idea to make the voters, any voters, think that you take them for granted.  The example of Hillary's endgame is likely to inspire a tougher fight from McCain at the end by making it appear that Obama can be reached when he is ahead.  But, what's done is done.  What matters to me is that Hillary is done.  I am grateful to Obama for making it so.

June 3, 2008 8:24 PM

fultimr said:

Michelle, as someone who has kept renewing as a subscriber in large part to the content you offer(that critique of George Allen's choosing of "Macaca" back in '06 was my favorite), I can certainly appreciate that there is a collective yearning among many women that aspire to see the day that a woman wins The White House better now than I did at this time last year.  It took Clinton's run and all that has come with it for me to take notice of that, so in that regard I and perhaps others may potentially relate better to that plight.  However, I'm not sorry to see Clinton go and am not entirely convinced she's "leaving" soon enough if at all.  Clinton's inner circle of women loyalists may actually be as likeable as you claim, but I as a voter can't afford to take that into account when surveying the potential damage and divisiveness her campaign has and may continue to inflict on the electorate.  There was a woman being interviewed yesterday on my WPR radio station who was the first female candidate to run for Governor of NH, and she stated that Clinton runs the risk of severely jeopardizing her legacy by her willingness to break the rules that she had agreed to in regards to MI and FL.  Perhaps if Clinton had something other than just fiercely determined loyalists surrounding her, she might have received viewpoints that had a much more objective view rather than the hyper-biased groupthink that helped contribute to some of the absolute tone-deaf statements that turned so many off to her candidacy.

Organizations often succeed or fail with what happens at the top and how much good information is available to those making the decisions based on how accurate the information they have to work with provided there is a free and open exchange of it.  I get the feeling with Penn being the only pollster, that contaminated the well of information right there and I have to wonder after reading the excerpts of "WHAT WENT WRONG" if any of these top advisors, whether nice people or not, had the objectivity to ever suggest to Hillary that there were things that she needed to correct as time went by.  If my division manager is on the verge of making a huge mistake, she wants one of us to let her know loud and clear of what we feel is coming because she knows that she, like any other human being, is by no means immune to making mistakes.  From everything I have read, I get the feeling that the structure of "Hillaryland" did not encourage objective exchange at the top.  

After having to put up with essentially the same structure for the last 8 years in The White House, where loyalty to the "leader" and his singular cause above all else including rationality and practicality, Clinton's all to similar dysfunctional family doesn't conjure up the kind of "change" I'm looking for.  The fact that Clinton is a woman has never been a dealbreaker for me.  But the constant refrain from too many of her loyalists that she, and they in turn, bear no responsibility for how her conduct has and continues to harm Democratic chances in '08 gives me no sense of remorse whatsoever in wishing she really was long gone from this thing.  Sorry to see her go?  I know better than to argue with someone's feelings, especially when that person's reporting has been so straight up with no signs of bias.  But from my perspective as a voter who has long felt a change in tone away from identity politics is well over a generation overdue, I'm sorry not only that she isn't gone, but that she appears to insists on staying.

June 3, 2008 8:37 PM

sabatia said:

I feel a little bad for her, as I had really liked her and continued to support her into January. And I really did tell people about what a great President Hillary would be and I did donate to her campaign. And I was a Bill supporter too.

So I already had more than a predilection for Hillary Clinton. The came late January and Bill's comments in SC and her surrogates(Lanny Davis by name) insulting my intelligence and even the bit of political wisdom I've accumulated.

I have known a lot of politicians of both the idealistic and self-serving variety--most are a blend. But any politician who will use race to divide us if it will gain them votes, will not have my vote.

Without getting into the hate mode: She has used wedge issues. Wedge issues and pandering have kept her alive. But they have divided us--white from black, man from women, working class from "elite", gentile from Jew. That's where the sadness comes in for me.

June 3, 2008 8:46 PM

sabatia said:

Sleepy, I find Hillary very demagogic, almost frighteningly so. Her pitting of blacks against whites and working people against the so-called elite for her own political gain. The Clintonists at the RBC hearing on Saturday--even as they got themselves more and more worked up, thank god there were some Clinton declared superdelegates on the committee who spoke to a more rational tone and politic. Shouting down Obama's speakers and even neutral speakers--was it Hillary or George who said: "Your either with us or against us?" This is the definition of demagogury.

June 3, 2008 8:58 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Michelle - thanks for putting yourself out here like that.  Your coverage of this campaign was Pulitzer material, the only real deal out there.  The female-ism was conveyed soley by tone and mood, so much more effective.  I think people have learned so much about women from you.

I'm afraid I'm one of those women who feel like Epic does. I felt that accusations of sexism were used as bullying weapons, just another opportunistic tool in her toolkit (even though there is sexism in the world and towards her in this campaign - TV was a sewer pit of sexism, I haven't watched in 15 years).

I'm a Bad Motive Impuner, I  know I know.  i can see why that is so enraging. I couldn't trust anyone who says "Not that I know of" on the Musim question, I'm sorry - that was wicked, vicious.  Girlfriend lost all credibility and trust with me that day.  Maybe I'm a neophyte who just doesn't get it, but I don't want to get that.

She could have been a real leader here - I longed for that in her.  At one point, I thought I could simply will her to be a bigger, classier, deeper person so I could be proud of her again.  I failed. She failed.  The sad part is, she probably would have gotten so many votes from ANY teeny grains of graciousness she could stand to part with.  Instead, she was mean and pinched and full of hooey.  I want to get over this, but it will take some time.

I am honestly joyful for what this campaign, has in fact, shown us: not only does the country clearly want to elect a female President, they long to.  I think it will be soon.

June 3, 2008 9:26 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Oh, I forgot to tell you - I figured out an answer for what Hillary should do:

First female Sec of Defense.

Tell me she wouldn't do a great job with all of those spreadsheet, spooks, budgets, warfare.  The brass love her, the white blue collars would love it.  It would be historic, imagine.

June 3, 2008 9:34 PM

anonevent said:

What fultimr said.  Additionally, I have always viewed this nomination as a spoil of riches.  We had two awesome candidates.  If only one of these two candidates had run against the other eight Democrats, it would not have been a contest.  But I thought that, when comparing these two, that Obama was just better than Clinton at the one skill that a president would need:  the ability to organize people, to speak to them as adults, and drive them towards a goal.  

June 3, 2008 9:35 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: You would mischaracterize the word "and" if there weere a way to do so. Jdyer cleaned your clock over at the Spine when he took you down for you naivete.

June 3, 2008 9:36 PM

dannyc said:

I'm not sad. She should sit down and shut up. (And the horse (Bill) she rode in on.)

-

June 3, 2008 9:49 PM

roidubouloi said:

Well, Michelle, according to Jonathan Chait and Isaac Chotiner, Hillary is now giving a speech that lives down to the worst expectations of her behavior when this moment finally arrived.

Still wistful about Hilllary, or do the fortunes of the Democratic party matter to you even if not to her?

*  *  *

Liberal, here's you over on the "What does Hillary want?" thread on The Plank, dissing matthawk who had made sharp comments about Hillary and her behavior but had said nothing personal, or even directly responsive, to anyone posting there.  

liberal reformer said:

Matthawk: You are as unhinged as any number of Hillary supporters. As I have been saying, people like you are more interested in venting your silly little spleens than in building coalitions and bridges.

June 2, 2008 3:47 PM

You need to get a handle on your own behavior.  A half a dozen posters today have pointed out to you that your self-description as someone who is civil until attacked does not comport with reality.  No one is attacking you for expressing your views, but your lectures about civility are both unwelcome and hypocritical, quite obviously so.

June 3, 2008 10:09 PM

ironyroad said:

Not only that, but the continual, almost parodic self-referentiality that pervades LibRef's invocation of "146 books," "nuance and irony," "civility" and the like, alongside the the faux-debating club diction from 1952, is really peculiar.  Something is not quite kosher with LR.  It's as if he/she is an act, and is both performing for real while also deliberately leaving clues as to the pretense.  What I don't get is why.

June 3, 2008 11:05 PM

jet said:

roi,

I posted a similar call out to Michelle over on Jon Chait's post about 'Hil's' speech.  It was a serious let down.

June 3, 2008 11:40 PM

roidubouloi said:

Well, jet,

Maybe Michelle will have something to say in the morning.  It would be useful if those who have been sympathetic toward Hillary start letting her know that her failure to do the right thing is not welcome in the party.

irony,

I don't get it either.

June 4, 2008 12:02 AM

ChanRobt said:

Hillary is a harridan, frightening in her consuming-- and self-consuming-- ambition.  To have given her real power, that would be something both terrifying and to cry about.  Save your tears, Michelle.

Frankly, the country would be best served at this juncture by someone who did not want to be president so awfully, awfully much.  A wise, experienced, intelligent unflamboyant man like Eisenhower.  

June 4, 2008 12:10 AM

dcphinney said:

Strange. I met the Clintons on numerous occasions at the White House and was always impressed that Hillary seemed the more charming and gracious of the two. That may be a sex thing. A co-chair of a state Democratic party committee commented to me, "Bill likes girls more." Hillary may be the victim of news media perception in the same way Al Gore was. Fun and charming in private, stiff in public.

June 4, 2008 12:26 AM

sleepyavl said:

dcphinnery, the press worries about her hair, make-up, clothes, etc. How would you feel if these cretins,m who liked Bush's folksy touch in 2000, did that you on a daily basis?

June 4, 2008 1:37 AM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: You are delusional, as usual. I have - just for starters - been set upon more than once as an Obama-hater, which I am not at all. Your kind has great difficulty distinguishing between (1) Distaste for Obamaphiles and dislike for Obama himself and (2) Scepticism of Obama and hatred of Obama.

June 4, 2008 2:46 AM

sabatia said:

Wandreycer: I find myself in the same boat as you. I have been an admirer and defender of Hillary for many years and of Bill as well. I supported Hillary with my words and donation. So I certainly don't think of myself as a Hillary hater or a Clinton hater.

But since she and Bill decided to go negative and to use wedge issues, issues which ultimately divide us rather than bringing us together, in late January, I have become increasingly discouraged by Hillary. I listened to her speech last night and all I heard was a constant refrain of me, me, me, me, me. I was hoping she would win me back. Instead she gave me additional reasons to distrust her.

To not acknowledge Obama's victory would not have happened if he were a white man.

June 4, 2008 7:40 AM

roidubouloi said:

liberal,

Your views about Obama don't interest me.  I don't even bother with them one way or the other.  What has always provoked you are my views about Hillary.

In general, you persistently describe yourself as uncivil only when "set upon."  Objectively, that is not the case.  Often you attack people personally before anyone has said a word to you.  Unless, that is, you are so identified with Hillary Clinton that setting upon her is de facto setting up.  Your idea of civility appears to be that we must all express our opinions about public officials or candidates for public office in terms that you do not find offensive or else be set upon by you.  That would indeed make you the self-appointed censor I have previously said you are.

Is that what you intend to do here?  If not, you ought to read your own posts carefully.  If so, please say so and then everyone will be prepared.

June 4, 2008 7:51 AM

Rhubarbs said:

sleepyval writes: "Has anyone given Obama a hard time over his clothes? Oh no, he's a man, no need to obsess over that."

Which is, I assume, a joke. Obama has in fact been attacked for his wardrobe, from early mocking on account of wearing a shirt and jacket with no tie to more recent attacks for how he adorns his suit lapels.

June 4, 2008 8:07 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Hillary is a dangerous demogauge.

June 4, 2008 8:15 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

(oops, hit enter).

The whipping up of aggrieved masses, encouraging them to willfully ignore reality, creating a "them" against "us" mentality, encouraging division, finding an enemy, pointing to them as the cause of the mass's rage and powerlessness.  

She's right out of Hannah Arendt.  If you cry because of this woman Michelle C, you are allowing yourself to be used, at best - moral relativism at worst.

June 4, 2008 8:23 AM

roidubouloi said:

Should have written of liberal:

"Unless, that is, you are so identified with Hillary Clinton that setting upon her is de facto setting upon you.  .  .  .  That would indeed make you the self-appointed censor I have previously said you are."

June 4, 2008 9:08 AM

lindamwil said:

Try this: Wasserman Schulz for veep.   The only disadvantage I see: the bumper sticker would fit only an SUV/Hummer

June 4, 2008 10:27 AM

lymon1 said:

Great post Michelle -- don't let Chait/Crowley/etc's snark keep you from writing.  I probably don't even have as much feeling for Hillary Clinton as you do (which might surprise many who read my posts here) but she deserved better than the double-standards that were applied by so many during this campaign.  

The sooner the hardcore Obama supporters can recognize and respect these sentiments, the better the chances to win in November.  

June 4, 2008 10:40 AM

lymon1 said:

Wandre -- I know that he's made a zillion missteps, but the person to offer a cabinet position to is Bill Clinton (secretary of state).  He's still popular in the nation and internationally and would send a message of "we're bringing the peace-and-prosperity 1990's back."   He's such an egomaniac that he would accept it even if it meant defanging Hillary's 2012 ambitions.  The fears of a rogue Clinton upstaging Obama are real, but I think he's concerned enough with his legacy that he'd put success ahead of the rest.  

June 4, 2008 10:44 AM

stephenwo said:

OK.  I'll play.  Who said anything resembling, "Oh my God! She must be hoping some nutjob supporter will take the RFK hint and assassinate Obama!"?  No, seriously.  I want to know.  Someone may have said this, but I want proof, or I'm calling bullshit.

The suggestion that the outrage surrounding that comment was an instance of people imbuing "her every word and action with the most venal motives imagineable" is nonsense.  With a long record of crass and graceless behavior, Senator Clinton made this remark very soon after RFK's brother had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor.  

Finally, I deny that the ability that enlist a cult-like following of insiders is a credit.  Hell, Bush did that.

June 4, 2008 11:10 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Yep, women and people of color will have to be twice as good to obtain real power for a long time to come Lymon.  I look forward to that first female president every bit as much as the most fervent Hillary supporter.  They certainly do not own that narrative.

I would have agreed with you on Bill Clinton if sunny gracious Bill stilll existed, but I'm one of those people who is convinced that he is emotionally troubled, changed.  I've seen this before.  Obama has the right to define his own cabinent entirely as he sees fit and in should in no way respond to threats.  Bill has a great mind and will no doubt be influential, but he would destable-ize Obama's cabinent.

Obama will seem weak if he does not stand up to Hillary's threats.  I know I'm certainly not responding to it.  I won't have Hillary or her supporters threaten me in ANY way.  I say to that, of course, as all humans do: do me a favor, make my day.  And then bite me.

People who threaten need to be destroyed, there is no other way.  And no, I am not *required* to cultivate some sort of phony respect for people who have employed such bullying tactics - simply because of their gonads.  No way no how.

June 4, 2008 11:22 AM

butchie b said:

SecDef would not be a bad idea for HRC.  I think she'd do just fine.  I say this as a former career officer who will vote for McCain.  HRC has the capability to be a fine SecDef.  of course, she'd be way more hawkish than her boss (so far as is known).

As I said awhile back, she will not drop, but will try to convince supers to switch back.  It will come to naught, but that won't stop her.

See you in Denver!

June 4, 2008 11:28 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Years ago, I remember Bill Bradley speaking at length of this threat/bully modus operendi of Hillary's.  

That Bill Bradley, now there's a sexist beast.

June 4, 2008 11:33 AM

arsonplus said:

"Deep down, I believe there's a snowballs chance of a woman being elected president in my lifetime..."

Those words represent, more than anything else, the biggest lie the Clinton folks have talked up over the lat five months.

Kathleen Sebelius is one three people who might actually wind up being Obama's VP, Sarah Palin has a great shot a being the GOP nominee in 2012 and McCain may even offer her the VP slot this time. Claire McCaskill is as well-positioned to inherit Obama's supporters [if Obama loses] as Mark Warner and here in Illinois, everyone knows Lisa Madigan is going to be either the next governor or the next senator and is a fantastic campaigner in her own right.

O' and the Clinton camps preemptive "don't  you dare pick another woman as VP" campaign makes the point better than I could.

June 4, 2008 12:00 PM

arsonplus said:

Ok so that should have read: "last five months"

June 4, 2008 12:03 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

Coming from you, that means alot Butchie.  I'm sure Obama himself will read my email to him this morning suggesting it and then I will have saved the world.

Ooops, getting in touch with my inner Hillary there for a minute.

June 4, 2008 12:41 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: You are not interested in anybody's views other than those of echo chambers, except to distort them.

June 4, 2008 1:23 PM

butchie b said:

Wandrey, we'll have a woman President in my lifetime, but I can't imagine that it will make much difference.  It is well acknowledged that there are practically no substantive differences between HRC and BHO.

Take any two politicians with the same views, and who cares whether one of them has ovaries?  Policies matter, not gender or skin color.

June 4, 2008 2:22 PM

roidubouloi said:

If you like, liberal.  But when you say something about Obama, or any other subject, that I find substantively interesting, I will be the first to say so.

June 4, 2008 2:31 PM

Wandreycer1 said:

I agree with you Butchie - but you need policies and political ability. If you don't have native political ability, policies don't get passed.

I think we will have a woman President within ten years.

June 4, 2008 5:08 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: I wear it as a badge of honor that you don't find me interesting. It would horrify me if you did. I do not have nearly enough bile for your taste, or guilibility, too, at the antipode. You are fascinating: you embody a certain quasi-intellectual sensibility cheek-by-jowl with a mad-hatter venom. In another lifetime, I could see you at Dachau, after performing your daily tasks, going home and putting on a little Brahms and pulling Moliere down from the shelf to read. Life is perfect - the discerning and quirkily brilliant teplukhin2you likes my posts and the literalit, insipid roid does not.

June 4, 2008 6:03 PM

dhlipsky said:

I liked her.  I find it a bit strange to hear convinced Obama voters -- who is running on personality above all -- describe Clinton's voters as cultish and loyalty drive.  But I'll leave that dissonance to sharper minds than mine.

However, one important thing to remember is that Bill Clinton was the only two-term Democratic president since Franklin Roosevelt.  A valuable addition to any campaign,  the same role Reagan played for so many post-White House GOP campaigns.  The Republicans tried hard to shame us out of an affection to him; posts like some here show me they've succeeded, and make me worry about the political instincts of party.

June 4, 2008 7:13 PM

roidubouloi said:

Well, gee thanks, liberal.  You're a very sensitive guy.  That is certainly the first time I have been compared to an SS guard at Dachau.  Have you ever been to Dachau?  I have.

The important thing, liberal, is that if you read the posts about you from a variety of people you get a pretty good idea of what people here think of your general behavior.  Hopefully, you will take it to heart.

I'm giving you the second pass in a row, just to get you started down the path to redemption.

June 4, 2008 7:47 PM

roidubouloi said:

dhlipsky,

That accounting for presidential terms is bogus.  Truman had two terms.  Kennedy/Johnson had two terms (not the fault of the Democrats that Kennedy was shot) and it is probable that Johnson would have been nominated and re-elected if he had not bowed out.  The country as a whole was definitely not ready for an anti-war candidate in 1968 and would not have switched presidents in the middle of the Vietnam War any more than it was willing to dump the idiot, Bush, in 2004.

In fact, the only exception to the two-by-two rotation of parties in the White House since Roosevelt is the one term for Jimmy Carter followed by three terms for Reagn/Bush.  But that deficit was made up by Clinton/Gore considering that Gore actually won the 2000 election, both the popular vote and the Florida Electoral vote if all the Florida ballots had been counted.  Perhaps the country would have been tired of the Dems after a first Gore term, but we will never know.

June 4, 2008 8:49 PM

liberal reformer said:

Roid: As a paid up barking member of the cult of victimology, you naturally project that off on me. I merely cite double standard and incivility out here but I don't feel particularly aggrieved. I leave that to you. It is the era of the confessional culture, it is the age of Oprah. I am actually having a good time here.

June 4, 2008 9:53 PM

whitec said:

Michelle, I admire in you what I learned from my journalistic family: the best reporters find ways to *like* their subjects, redeeming both the everyday world and its coverage. However, Stephenwo’s questions are worthy of response and analysis. The criticisms I read of Hillary’s RFK gaffe were exactly as he described; despite our gratitude to the Clintons, we were all reminded of their seedy crassness.

Stephenwo’s final note recalls the meme of a month or two ago: Hillary obviously works and studies more than W, but they share many points. Combine that with her increasingly Republican campaign style of division and resentment, plus her brazen hypocrisy on Michigan and Florida. Our distaste for her does not result from sexism but from reasoned experience.

Kudos, though, to the suggestions of Hillary for DefSec and Bill for Sec of State—both can’t be true, but each has the ring of truth.

I read with interest roid’s impressively close reading of liberal reformer but gave the latter the benefit of the doubt until he leapt to comparing his interlocutor with an SS guard at Dachau. Foul! Stupid, degrading foul.

June 4, 2008 11:29 PM

roidubouloi said:

But you keep complaining that you are being attacked, liberal.  There are a good half dozen posts to that effect scattered around in just the last day or so.  Do you read anyone else here constantly whining that they are being attacked for their opinions? No. Because no one is and no but you makes a fetish out of it.  

June 4, 2008 11:32 PM

fseidle said:

Hang on Michelle. We are about to elect the first bi-racial president. A women president is on the horizon.

The way things are changing,a black woman could be next. Lets hope it is not Condi though.

June 9, 2008 10:06 AM