"I am pretty sure that the maze of snarling careerists that has assembled around the star couple does not really have these illusions. They were simply convinced, like the old British ruling class, that destiny would bless them with power."

You don't think that the people surrounding Obama are also careerists?

When it comes to the Clinton's you are close to delusional.

jackson, nothing wrong with being a careerist, hell everyone needs a career, it is the lengths people go in order to hold onto it that is being called into question here.

Paul Begala essentially wrote off all of Obama's supporters as eggheads and blacks. Speaking as an egghead, I can confidently state that I could kick his ass in a street fight at any point of his life. It is this faux toughness that is so loathsome. Obama, to his credit, has never paraded around as a tough guy although given his upbringing I am sure he can give as good as he gets.

There are two types of Democrats I can take, tough sob's like Jim Webb or Murtha, or "I feel your pain" empathy types like Bill pretended to be. Hillary's crew are not constitutionally made out to be tough guys (except maybe Carville who looks like he was released from prison for manslaughter). Thankfully, this is their last hurrah, it is both pathetic and amusing to watch them wail as they go off into the long goodnight.

Your first paragraph would make more sense if you used a few quotation marks:

"The humiliating defeat of Hillary Clinton is not only her being vanquished by someone she concedes is an amateur. She has also persuaded herself that this means the decline of American liberalism, as well." This is utter nonsense, of course.

Um, shouldn't we wait until after Obama is elected and passes some policy before we pronounce the Clintons wrong on this front?  Or did I miss the Mondale administration or the Dukakis administration or the Kerry administration.  I know many progressives can't stand the blue dog democrats (which is how Jerry Brown got so far in 1992 and Ralph Nader got so far in 2000), but the fact is they are the only ones who have managed to be elected president and pushed the nation in any sort of progressive direction.  

adam, actually concedes is used wrong, a concession is a positive act, it should be someone she considers to be an amatuer.

lymon, please Hillary is not Bill. Her pushing the theme that it will be a Clinton third term didn't work, so the fact is "they" were NOT the only ones who have managed to get elected. Bill was. Whether or not Obama is elected is irrelevant to this fact. Bill can never be President again, hence he can never manage anything. Hillary can be President, but she has not even managed to win the nomination so of course we can claim her wrong since she lost.

blackton -- by that logic, McGovern's nomination wasn't a setback to liberalism because all the other candidates lost.  I can envision a bunch of candidates that could have won a general election but would never have been nominated by their party -- Colin Powell in 2000 would be an example.  A strong argument can be made that Hillary Clinton is *not* such a candidate, but you can't deny that even before the rise of Obama some were saying that the "netroots" would never forgive her Iraq War vote and support someone to the left of her.  The fact is that should Obama lose to McCain, we'll never know how "a Clinton third term" might have fared.  

lymon, who cares what a few moveon types said? I am a conservative Democrat and am happy with a lot of Bill Clinton's policies, but what the hell has that got to do with Hillary? Besides, the country has changed since the 90's. You know, 9/11, two wars, high gas prices, etc. I doubt that Bill could replicate the environment then now, and know sure as hell Hillary can't.

McGovern's candidacy wasn't a setback to liberalism, liberalism was a setback to liberalism. You can put a dress on a pig, but that won't make it a prom date (except for Arkansas).

Counterfactual history is amusing, but to argue about how a Clinton third term might have fared is pointless. What ifs and could have beens....

We all have regrets, maybe we will regret Obama, but because it is possible we might regret him is not certainty that we will regret him. And if he loses, then we go on. Hillary is delusional if she thinks America will embrace a "I told you so" candidacy.

You left out other courtiers, in particular Terry McAuliffe, Mark Wolfson, the obsequious Lanny Davis, and, as another reader mentioned, Paul Begala. I've voted a straight Democratic ticket all my life, but this year resolved to vote for McCain if Hillary was the nominee (and I live in a swing state). The Democratic Party, with its proud history (at least since 1932), cannot continue to be merely the vehicle for the Clinton's boundless ambitions.

my grandmother used to tell us urchins that "what goes around, comes around." The Old Dude's charmless gloating about Clinton, with his juvenile and tasteless insinuations about her eating habits and marriage, have now been transferred to those who work for her.

Put a sock in it peretz. Yes, Clinton is probably sunk but she waged a tough battle and more than held her own against some pretty tough odds and a tough opponent. However, I sense that her exit will be more dignified and grown up than the adolescent piles that you have been dropping on your blog this week. You demean yourself - if after 30 charmless years of emotionally stunted diatribes - with every post. Hillary is a better person - and a bigger man - than you can ever hope to be.

lymon -

Clinton is the Mondale candidate here, not Obama (who is more Gary Hart).  Mondale (unlike Clinton) pulled away from Hart after ridiculing his "New Ideas" platform as lacking substance.  Then he suffered the worst electoral defeat of any presidential candidate, netting only D.C. and Minnesota.

While I understand the desire by some Clinton supporters to liken Obama to any of the Democratic losers of the past 30 (40?) years, they simply don't fit (except maybe McGovern).  Further, if you can't see that Obama is a much stronger candidate than any of them, you're just fooling yourself.  After all, he beat the Clinton machine.

Blackton, I too prefer tough Demos to the bunch that's running the show right now.

btw, have you seen my daughter Hillary? She is one tough bitch.

Go Hillary.

Marty, I wish I could agree with you but I fear Clinton's minions are resilient. They will find some other candidate to latch onto in order to continue to practice their "art" of political gamesmanship.

I agree with jacksondyer, "Go Hillary," that is, Go Hillary, please -- just go away.

Blackton: What does "liberalism was a setback to liberalism" mean? Sounds like a tautology to me. Clearly the liberalism of Hubert Humphrey was electorally more successful than the left - liberalism of George McGovern. When the base of the Democratic Party shifted from blue - collar workers to professionals, the Democratic Party took a huge hit. McGovern was a supporter of Henry Wallace in 1948. He had voted for the Taft - Hartley Act, which caused George Meany to remain neutral in the 1972 election. We're not talking about dressing up a pig here, we are bringing in a rhinocersos and calling it a pig.

blackton -- poysonally I'd have liked to have taken my chances with Muskie vs. Nixon.

Od -- you haven't been here long enough to know what I've said about Obama and Clinton in that respect -- if you're interested and a glutton for punishment e-mail me :-)

I still think y'all are straying from Marty's post.  If the Dems don't win the white house in 2008, *that* is a setback for liberalism.  Period.  And IF yet another non-Clinton loses while I'm not going to assume that Clinton could have won, I'm not going to dismiss that idea as "nonsense" -- as I've written, I think there is a very different dynamic between the two in a race vs. McCain -- I see Obama getting more total votes than Hillary Clinton but not necessarily more electoral college votes.  Racking up uber-margins in California, Illinois, even NY and making huge inroads into GOP strongholds in the west...but possibly not enough to beat McCain.  Meanwhile, I could envision HRC barely squeaking out wins in PN, OH, MI and FL -- I think it will be a challenge for Obama to win all of those.  Time will tell. which was the point of my first comment.  

LR, I am talking about the Liberalism of the late 60's early 70's that Pat Moynihan critiqued so well. As to Hubert Humphrey style, that was 40 years ago when Unions held sway over 32% of the workforce. Mondale ran as Humphrey and was killed. My point is that people can't stick to any static definition of what Liberal is policy wise. Buckely said Conservatism was standing athwart history and yelling "stop", might I add the Liberalism is standing athwart history and yelling "hurry up"

And I would have you know I come from a long line of tautologists, so I take exception to your denigration of my family history. And beyond that, I would have you know I come from a long line of tautologists, so I take exception to your denigration of my family history. Additionally, I would have you know I come from a long line of tautologists, so I take exception to your denigration of my family history.

lymon, when you become lord high emperor of the world then you can decide we can base the nominating process on your opinion alone, until then rightly or wrongly, lets let the voters decide, and if they decide wrong, so be it. And so be it if it is a setback to Liberalism, liberalism will survive with or without the cult of the Clintons, if it can't then Liberalism is not worth a damn.

Lymonl: Actually, Mondale ran as Mondale. Already by 1980, you had a different base emerging in the Democratic Party. The late Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. denominated Jimmy Carver as the most conservative Democratic president since Grover Cleveland (he bailed in the '80 election and supported John Anderson).  Even so, a large number of Carter delegates at that year's convention were from the NEA. Mondale couldn't have been more different from Humphrey in that he piggybacked on that trend and tapped into left cultural forces, such as the uber feminists. .

I am not a tautologist, so I shall stop here. Stop here. Stop here. Oops, it looks like that meme is catchy.

Blackton: I meant to address you , of course (cf. my above post; apologies to lymonl). One more thing. That quote of Buckley's is from the first issue of National Review in 1955. I have long thought that that quote was so divided against the thrust of the magazine, which supported (and supports rampant capitalism). God knows Marx was wrong about so much, not least of which was the notion that his system was scientific. But he was right about a few big things and one of them was that capitalism is extremely corrosive of traditional values and ways of doing things. Daniel Bell has written eloquently about the cultural contradictions of capitalism, as did Joseph Schumpeter. Another confidence trick of the right, besides the faux populsim that Jonathan Chait so eloquently describes, is blaming the 60's for everything from coarser language to the existence of Madonna to increased use of the demotic to crime waves to viral secularism; almost never do conservatives indict the logic of economics for any cultural trends that they dislike. George Will is an exception; when he is not nattering on in faux populist fashion, he is capable of writing a fine column and he has taken up the topic of the cultural contradictions of capitalism on more than one occasion.

Pity Peretz the groveling Obama minion.

Newsflash: powerful politician attracts careerists.

In other breaking news, Dog Bites Man, and Young Males Seek to Coax young Females To Have Sex.

My views toward Clinton's campaign and conduct have been much along the same lines of what Peretz has often offered here in THE SPINE.  I was mostly with him on this one too, but I'm not sure that I can recall Stephanopoulos really ever bringing much to the table.  That last debate he "moderated" struck me as being a lot of things, but "productive work" sure didn't appear to be one of them.  Not that I'm trying to knock Marty Peretz, as I do enjoy a good deal of what I read from him here.  I'm just curious as to what he sees in Stephanopoulos that would separate him from so many of the others in the group mentioned.

Fultimr: That was my sentiment exactly when I saw this post, George Stephanopoulos did not do himself proud as moderator of the last debate. It seems that Mr. Peretz loathes the Clintons so much that he will sometimes engage in a dubious stretch in order to score points against them. I have never much cared for Stephanopolous myself, ever since the beginning of the Clinton presidency.

Fultimr: That was my sentiment exactly when I saw this post, George Stephanopoulos did not do himself proud as moderator of the last debate. It seems that Mr. Peretz loathes the Clintons so much that he will sometimes engage in a dubious stretch in order to score points against them. I have never much cared for Stephanopolous myself, ever since the beginning of the Clinton presidency.

Minions, followers, what have you, there have always been very talented people who can't make it without a strong leader. I'm reminded of the great ad agencies after the founder fails or leaves. It all just falls apart.

The Clintons demise signals the departure of a large number of Boomers, who like Donna Shalala, will find safe haven in academia.

None of them have the entrepreneurial spirit to accomplish anything on their own. I guess the next game on the blogosphere will be guessing who will be the first Clinton insider to emerge on the Obama team. My bet: Carville. He'll come with the promise of being able to deliver the Blue Dogs. Hope they slam the door in his face.

That Martin Peretz despises Hillary Clinton and uses this space to vent his spleen is hardly news to anyone.

However, it is no insult to HRC to rejoice in the prospect of the retirement of some of her minions.

I hold no grudges against Maggie Williams or even Howard Wolfson.  They have been both loyal to their candidate and competent.  I did not want to change the channel every time I saw Wolfson.  Even Begala has his good points.  I suspect that they will be around for awhile, or end up like Susan Estrich writing columns few people will read.  And if HRC had hired Geoff Garin in the beginning, she might be the nominee by now.

On the other had, I will be particularly glad to see the obsequious and deeply disingenuous Lanny Davis go, along with James Carville, whose fifteen minutes were up a long time ago, as well as Mark Penn.

I knew I would be an Obama supporter when I read that Axelrod recruited Plouffe by telling him "There will be no assholes in this campaign."  Thus far Axelrod has kept his promise.

Timteeter: Agreed on the person of James Carville. He has always looked like a lizard to me and acted like one, too. Actually, that is a libel on lizards. I have long wondered what his marriage to Mary Maitlin is like. A pugnacious Republican operative joined at the hip to an even more pugnacious Democratic one. Perhaps they are the only people who could tolerate each other.

Jaunty Boulevardier, thank you.  Great post.  I've had cousins working for TNR for decades before I was born, and am a loyal reader, but Marty's disdain for Hillary is a badge of honor for her and the people who've supported her -- not just the careerists, but the many millions of New Yorkers and other Americans who've voted for her (and the countless individuals including my passionate liberal retired schoolteacher mother who've given her money).  

Blackton:  "let's let the voters decide"?  From your previous posts, I believe you mean "unless the voters happen to live in a state whose political leaders got into a pissing match with Howard Dean."  

Jaunty, I've used to think your digs of Peretz were over the top.  Now, in light of his seemingly endless churlish, mean-spirited, vulgar, ugly contumely of the Clintons, which smacks of sour grapes for some kind of social snub, your comment is right on target.

Lanny Davis, the distinguished Clinton impeachment counsel, is a personal favorite of mine. When there is a call for TRUTH, Lanny is there.

Former political associates of mine are near the top of the Clinton campaign. There was already a crew working on potential candidates she would appoint to cabinet and supreme court positions. Apparently Hillary personally insisted that Lanny's name be the sole one listed for her Attorney General. In her negotiations with the Obama camp, she wants help in paying off her debt--and she is already insisting that it include her self-debt and debt to Mark Penn--, she wants Obama to be chummy and respectful to Bill, and she wants a small handful of favorable appointments for her most loyal staff and supporters. At the top of that list, she wants Obama to promise that Lanny will be either AG or a Supreme Court nominee.

jimbo & DMelhorn,

The sad thing about these posts is that now that Obama appears to have it in the bag, which is good news to his supporters like me and The Grudge Holder, he can, if so inclined, take the High Road.

Instead, as you all can see, the man shows his true colors by going to an even more ugly place, a truer and more revealing indication of his core character, if you can even say that he has a core character.

Very sad. Or not, depending upon your views. What this tells me is that there really are not any people in his life who are willing to pull him aside and say listen, you're my friend but you are wrong and you are making a fool of yourself with this Clinton (and Kerry and Carter and Baker and Sharpton and Jackson and Bollinger...you get the picture) hatred.

He exists in a vacuum, a moral and ethical vacuum. What a ghastly way to live.

sabatia, I hope your informants are wrong! Such a deal would be a disaster for Obama.

Pity Marty Peretz, the pathetic creature whose blogging mojo is kept alive solely through his vitriolic attacks on, and pathological hatred of, the Clintons.

jaunty, your take of Peretz was very good. And also of Hillary. Clearly while you may support Obama, that doesn't need demeaning and lying outright about HRC, as Peretz, Crowley, Chait do.

Jaunty, I differ from you on Bollinger. If anything, Peretz is too soft on Bollinger.