Don't forget her desperation comments down the stretch about how Florida was akin to Zimbabwe and the 2000 Presidential election.

I tink that it is good to try to tamp down the hostility, Jonathan. That is what the Barackster was trying to do on Tuesday evening.

Darn it Rozen - you keep saying what I want to say - first!

The attempt at exonerating Mrs. Clinton is a typical Defense Attorney gambit: concentrate on, and then dismiss or justify each consequential and inconsequential act or piece of evidence, in order to cast doubt on the big picture that may be clear and unambiguous. (OJ trial: "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit.")

Here, the speech was, even on its own terms and even disconnected from the history of the campaign, problematic.  But of course, the campaign had a history and, as Rozen pointed out, a not-too-distant history where the "Kitchen sink" she threw at Mr. Obama included plumbing from the basement and a few yards of the municipal sewage pipeline.  As against that context, the speech becomes inexcusable.

There is a grander context, lest we forget: of elections and primaries and democratic systems and so on.  Against that grander context, Mrs. Clinton's speech transcends mere politics; its roots must be sought in psychology, and deeply pathological psychology at that.  Toobin was right.  The harping on the votes won and so on - the incessant, incandescent Meism on display Tuesday night - is not politics but self-hagiography.  What does Hillary want?  Mrs. Clinton answered that in the Larry King debate: this election is NOT about Hillary Clinton; it is about the American people.  Elections are won in accordance with certain rules.  The democratic Democratic process gave Obama the greatest number of delegates.  

There - that is what Hillary ought to want: that the process function and that there is a candidate.  This is the grander context: the functioning of the democratic process.  And Mrs. Clinton failed, and failed miserably at that.

Also - I'm no mind reader, but its difficult to assume that she is conceeding out of the goodness of her heart or a desire to unite.  

The only reason she didn't climb on a plane this morning to start her "Let's Undermine Obama" tour was that her allies metaphorically konked her over the head.  

If Rendell, Rangel and the Congressional members on that conference call (would dearly love to see the transcipt of that) hadn't finally driven that stake, she's be on her "listening tour" of supporters, continuing her Hannah Arendt seminar.  

She may still try it.  Until I see her conceed and endorse Obama wholeheartedly, I won't believe it.

"It's quite clear that Clinton's decision to stay in the primary despite having essentially zero chance of victory hurt the party."

Nope, don't agree. That lively campaigned ginned up voter registration and got lots of people pumped about the Dem party.

The only reasonable HRC criticism is her cynical Florida stuff, that really sucked (although Obama didn't exactly cover himself in glory here). Anyone who says that Clinton ran a 'race baiting' campaign should hang their heads in shame.

Finally, it's not unprecedented for someone to wait a bit before truly conceding/endorsing, Bill Bradley sure didn't do it... oh yeah I forgot, the media loved Bradley, hated Gore, and hates Clinton.

I agree with libref.  Yeah, it's a strange feeling ....

Anyway, it's not in anyone's interest (well, except John McCain's) to keep this argument alive.  

Jeezus, give it a rest.

When do you guys stop beating up on Clinton and give up the hysteria?

This crap is starting to look positively jungian.

Jonathan, although I agree that her speech was not a good thing for the Democratic party's chances in November, I sense that it will be quickly overshadowed by her endorsement of Obama this weekend.  Her campaign after the numbers said she wouldn't win will certainly be remembered, but her speech on Tuesday will only be remembered as the bookend, not another entirely different outrage.  Clinton can overshadow her last few months with the next few months, if she campaigns as hard for Barack as she did for herself.

There's been a lot of back and forth as to whether the extended primary season helped or hurt Dems.  But in the final analysis, you have to say it hurt.  Elections are about bestowing legitimacy on the government or political leadership.  By actively working to besmirch the legitimacy of the Democratic Party nominating process, Senator Clinton has weakened her party in November.

I too am frustrated by the ridiculous attacks on Sen. Obama's preparedness, the innuendo about him possibly being Muslim, Bill's unhinged rantings.  But I think the effort to de-legitimize the DNC's primary process will be the most destructive legacy of the Clinton campaign.

Kitchen sink? Maybe... HRC did not bring up the Reverend Wright issue, and we Obama supporters can thank our lucky stars it happened when it did (after Iowa/Super Tuesday, before October). Can you imagine how upset the RNC is?

There was a 100% chance Obama's controversial pastor was going to become a campaign issue (much more so than the somewhat manufactured and very weak connection to Ayers/Dohrn, although that was obvious also).

Al Gore did not really bring up the furlough issue during the 1988 Dem primary campaign... don't you wish he had?

I'm torn between righteous indignation and schadenfreude (both tons of fun) on the one hand; and pragmatism on the other.  I certainly agree with Chait that no amount of contextualizing can excuse Clinton's speech or the general tenor of her campaign down the stretch.

But it's clearly more important at this point to get Obama elected and send the Republicans into a well-earned exile from the halls of power.  If doing that means pretending Clinton is not being selfish and flattering the vanity of her supporters, then so be it.

Ratnerstar,

Are you kidding? I have an interest in keeping this argument alive. I've still got 10 cases of "Hard-Working-American-White-American for Hillary!" t-shirts to move.

These things didn't pay for themselves. I had to give my shirt company a loan from my my book deal and wife's speaking fees. So what if I loaned the money long after the race was mathematically over. I deserve to get that debt covered!

ratner and bigfish: I don't think we should harp on the speech, but - they started it :-).  Wandrey says it best: this would not have happened without her supporters stepping in; and the supporters would not have stepped in without the speech; the speech was that bad; the continued attempt at contextualising and defending it only deepens divisions; we should ALL move on - not just some of us, not just those of us who thought the speech sucked, but ALL of us ...

esmense:  "This crap is starting to look positively jungian"

Now that it's over, I feel positively Jung again.

Hey, TNR, how about you m'f'ing *WARN* me before you automatically resubscribe me and charge my debit card 29 bucks?!  I don't keep money in that account any more.  Seriously, you've just dropped below Clinton on my shitlist; at least Hillary never caused me to get an overdraft fee.

Chait is exactly right. He has been a superb observer and commenter throughout the primary.  No guff.  He gets the kudos along with Eve Fairbanks and to a lesser extent Michelle Cottle.  Judis needs to re-read everything Chait has written.  gea1434, someone I do not recall posting before, adds a very short yet precise coda.

Mmathog, I don't hesitate for a moment to re-state that her campaign engaged in shameless race-baiting, and she did too -- "hard-working Americans, white Americans."  Despicable!  Execrable!  That's our Hillary, all Hillary, all the time.  A complete disgrace and a traitor to the Democratic party (not that she ever was a real Democrat anyway).  There's a blog here today about how one of the supers who just endorsed Obama is getting an endless stream of disgusting, racist phone calls about it.  That is Hillary's legacy to the 2008 Democratic primary, that and a bunch of mortally aggrieved, middle-aged women -- cultists -- who are convinced that the election has been stolen from her and the she, and they, are the victims of raging sexism.  Thanks, Hill.  What more could you have done for the benefit of the Democratic party?  Does the "stabbed in the back" rhetoric remind you of anything mmathog?

As for giving it a rest, esmense, it is always time to keep bashing and trashing Hillary until she finally, finally, walks off the stage or is carried off.  As long as she is there trying to drive in reverse, it is our JOB as good Demcorats to push, push, push back.  I'm trying to do my tiny part and I have no intention of stopping until she leaves the stage.  She gives that preposterous speech on Tuesday as if she had just WON the election and was congratulating the loser and you complain that we are beating up poor HIllary?  Why don't you write a letter to Hillary and tell her to be a gracious loser and then shut up and sit down.

I prepared myself back in Mach for a bad end and steeled myself for more chaos when Icky got wild in DC.  When she asked for 'feedback' on Tuesday I knew she'd hear the first voices from the outside world since Bill played the Judas card.  The friends (not on the payroll and not looking for a ticket on a ticket) seem to be pleading temporary insanity which was fed by the nothin' to lose crowd.  

She can brag about the delegates but the 'Popular Vote' won't stand the test of time (What is she counting as Official?). Her only hope for redemption is to bust her ass because the last few months will sell a sad story.  Yes, count on books to tell more of the nasty than any current spin can mitigate.  

Whether sad and sick or selfish and mean, at least we can hope it is over as it could have been sadder and sicker till someone carried her off.  

On my short list of "The worst outcomes"...No, Tuesday night didn't make the Top Ten.  As of Tuesday afternoon, we knew she was not quitting. An out of touch rant and forty-eight more ugly hours?  I planned for more.

mmathog, please name for us the presidential candidates, in either party, who have publicly touted their appeal to white Americans since, let's say, 1972.

...

That silence we hear is because the list has exactly one name on it: Hillary Clinton. If you want to set standards by which Hillary has not engaged in systematic race-baiting over the last five months, fine, but realize that one consequence of establishing such standards is that Jesse Helms (and indeed all other recent obvious race-baiters) will also be in the clear. Which is a bit like establishing  definition of "pornography" that does not include "Hustler" magazine.

esmense:  "This crap is starting to look positively jungian"

ironyroad:  "Now that it's over, I feel positively Jung again."

Lucky you; I feel totally Jung over.

Does anyone see the utter absurdity of Hillaristas complaining that, for the good of the party, we ought now to stop bashing Hillary for her continuing to bash Obama?  Where was their outrage when she was busy throwing the kitchen sink and every bit of dreck caught in the trap along with it?  Where is their outrage now about her insane, demented speech on Tuesday?

"I want to take a moment to congratulate Obama on his fine campaign, the many voters he has motivated to get involved," as though she were the winner extending ritual congratulations to the loser.  Nutter that she is.

"But her decision to privilege her own sense of dignity came at a clear cost to the prospects of the Democratic Party and all the causes (like universal health care) she claims to value above all."

The operative word here is "claims."  Hillary doesn't really give a rat's ass about any of this stuff.  Hillary cares about Hillary and these causes she "claims" to care about are merely the vehicle for her ambition, rather than her ambition being the vehicle for the causes she purports to champion.

How much more evidence do we need?

Beyond Obama supporters, and with the exception of Clinton ones, I gotta believe most Republicans and Independents were appalled by Hillary's utter lack of class. I had thought McCain's speech was awful (not as written but as performed) but Hillary's speech will be long remembered as an epic disaster. Her non-concession speech should be remembered as the whine heard round the world. New England is remembered as the best team not to win the Superbowl, imagine instead if after the game they stayed on the field, said they would consult their fans if they should stay in, complained about the officiating, said they gained more yards than the Giants, etc. How would they then be remembered? As graceless losers. If the shoe fits Hillary. She has gone from the unbeatable to Ralph Nader (a spoiler) in one cycle. I truly think that Obama can't win now, the Clintons' are determined if they can't be in the White House, no other Democrat can be, and certainly not one who had the gall to beat Hillary.

At the start of the campaign I was against Hillary because I don't believe in political dynasties, because I thought Dems would be stupid to nominate a woman hated by Republicans, and because I don't think it is a good idea to vote for someone as a form of saying "screw you" to Republicans, so it wasn't so much I was opposed to Hillary as a person, and I was certainly happy for her to be a Senator. Now, I simply can't stand her. And so what? I am only one person, why does everyone get all delicate about her feelings? Not being President is not the worst thing in the world.

You guys can't give up, can you?

It is an addiction.

Do you even care who wins in November?

In your heart of hearts I think you'd prefer that McCain win -- because that would give you an excuse to feed your addiction with additional YEARS of complaining about how it is all that awful woman's fault.

"Hillary doesn't really give a rat's ass about any of this stuff."

Bullshit.

roid - you're comment about Chait being an excellent observer throughout the primary made me think: Now that the primary is over, looking back, who were the keenest observers of what was happening - both from the pro and amateur ranks?

It is true esmense how people who seem to want to advance the agenda represented by the Democratic party not only not mind when opportunistic hacks like Crowley flog their leaders, but they actually are suckers enough to embrace their idiotic (and self-destructive) narratives.

I don't see Romney (or Huckabee) doing this to McCain. Pete Wilson talked about leading a floor fight against Dole in '96, and Dole operatives said literally 'we want to kill Pete Wilson.'

HRC's behavior wasn't even vaguely outside any norms, she lost a close race, she's conceding it on Saturday, whatever. (Not happy with her over Florida though, that was some cynical bullshit).

Also, any time I hear about how 'ambitious' and 'selfish' and 'Nixonian' HRC is considering that she ran a campaign that featured Rudy fucking Guiliani I burst out laughing.

I agree with gea1434. Yes, the excitement of the campaign, the new voters and the historic nature of the race were all positives for the party. But the fact that Hillary, in her desperation not to lose, took such pains to try and wound Obama in an effort to make him "unelectable" were shameless and probably hurt his prospects in November. Throughout the campaign, she took advantage of his extreme reluctance to strike back, mostly because that was the core of his message about change, but also because she was a woman and he couldn't risk making her appear like a victim. (She used a similar strategy in her 2000 Senate race.)

Her Tuesday night non-concession speech was just piling on. She was flaunting the fact that she could say or do pretty much whatever she wanted and Obama would have to remain gracious in response. Fortunately, it came back to bite her in the ass yesterday, as even her most loyal supporters had had enough.

Perhaps the fact that she will be remembered as having to be kicked out of the race will neutralize a little of the damage she did.

Ratty,

nice [lying] women have told me that I am Jung...

If my many years of reading Jonathan Chait had not supremely convinced me of his merit, I would be shaken by roid's endorsement of his acumen. Even then, it is unsettling. But come to think of it, Jonathan's superb analytical skills vector together with roid's cheap moralism, so no worries after all.

I think we'd probably all be better off replacing our memories of Clinton's actual Tuesday speech with this song, which conveys exactly the same meaning, but is a hell of a lot more fun and a hell of a lot shorter:

youtube.com/watch

It remains the epitome of hypocrisy for Hillaristas to complain that rank and file expressions of disgust with Hillary threaten the party's chances in November while excusing Hillary's continuing efforts to sink Obama (trying as best she can not to get her hands dirty of course).  We who object are objecting to her behavior against the interest of the party.  It is not merely hyprocritical, by god, but (pregnant pause, drumroll .   .   . ) cheap moralism!!!!! to blame the objection and not the objectionable.

You Hillaristas don't seem to give a goddamn about damaging the party so long as Hillary Clinton is doing it.  Then it is supposed to be the job of the rest of us to make nice to you and Hillary to clean up the mess she makes and prevent it from resulting in the very animosity she is trying to stoke.  If that isn't perverse, what is?  Pure hostage taking.  

Screw Hillary Rodham Clinton.  

(Uh oh, now liberal reformer is going to chime in that I am merely expressing my repressed sexual desire for her.   What have I done to myself?)

esmense...yeah -- the UMF (United Misogynist Front) is out in force here, isn't it? Such sensitive souls all these boys are....

Ugh, I'm tired of beating up on other Democrats.  Can't we just all agree to turn this thing against McCain?

She can concede tomorrow, it's fine with me.  She should be judged on the basis of how she supports Obama between now and November, not the diffficulty she has in letting go of a hard-fought and close campaign.  She will be too, and this mini-flap over the timeliness of her concession will soon be forgotten.

Yeah, yeah lisah.  No one could possibly think of a reason to object to Hillary Clinton's political behavior, her voting record, her pandering to the right, and of it.  It's all just misogyny.  She's a victim.  You're a victim.  It's terrible.  Just terrible

Well then, hewstino, we can just party on.  Everything will be forgotten.  Let's see how good a job she does ion Friday, or is it Saturday, oh, whenever it is she gets around to it.  If she really does it well and behaves herself between now and November (no maneuvering against him behind the scenes, potshots, none of that crap), I shall be only to happy to forgive all.  You can come to my forgiveness speech.  I hope that you will not consider it untimely if I wait until after the election.

I felt sure Rhubarbs was going to link to this video: www.youtube.com/watch

roid -- I'm not talking victimology here --  Got no use for professional victims, black, female, whatever. Just commenting on all the cranky little boys at play in this sandbox...

Only political behavior at fault here is the terminal idiocy the little boys are spouting. Do whine on....

...and I'm adding Obama-bots to the list of professional victims.

More I think about all this, the more I think Obama deserves better supporters than the obsessed crew on board here...

Well, since I'm cleary a woman hater now, I at least hope I'm well Jung.

Jonahtan, the woman may really and truly believe that Obama is going to be a disaster, either for the Democratic Party, or if he wins for the nation and the Democratic Party.

Which he will be, if he wins.

So, maybe she's a patriot and the thought of him leading the nation to defeat is keeping her ambivalent.

Now that she seems to be - finally - getting the message, and - finally - seems to be ready to join the Democratic Party again, we will all make nice.  In particular, Barack Obama will continue to make nice.  That doesn't mean Jonathan Chait isn't absolutely right.

He is.

Neil

Whine, lisah?  Oh please.  Do you ever do anything else?  Not that I can see.

In the end, Hillary didn't even win the popular vote.  Montana, that other state HRC pretended doesn't exist, was +25k for Obama.  SD was -10k.  The net of 15k covered Hillary's slim lead going in.

David Greenberg writes : Despite what you may have heard, there is nothing slow or delayed about Hillary

Who should be apologizing? The biggest problem Obama has is recovering from the daily attacks made by the Clintons that he is not prepared to be president, he is insensitive to the needs of women, and that McCain would make a better president. She weakened him. The Clinton machine weakened him by bending and breaking the rules, by race-baiting, by appealing to the Blue Dogs in the party.

It is not vindictive to remain "anti-Clinton", it's imperative. Because the Clintons represent the worst kind of Crony Capitalism. The Clinton machine needs to go - they represent a corrupt, dynastic strain of American politics, as does the Bush machine.

One dynasty down, one to go.

Time for a Change.

Roid: You caused me to laugh out loud and Sheena, my fiancee, found your remark concerning repressed sexual desire funny, as well. What is going on? You have never evinced a sense of humor prior to this even once. Couple that with two or three insightful posts; is the apocalypse near? But then, maybe it's creeping maturity. You are turning 14 next month, are you not?

liberal, it has reached the point where about half your posts are about me. How flattering. I don't find you nearly that interesting.  

Hemerrhoid: I don't find you a bit interesting. Bullies never are. You are appalling, in the extreme. Mr. PC Identity policeman is upset that someone who can quote James Joyce correctly has intruded on "his" turf.

You quoted Joyce correctly??  Where?