TNR BLOGS

September 07, 2008 | 2:54 PM
September 06, 2008 | 4:31 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:43 PM

September 05, 2008 | 2:53 PM
September 05, 2008 | 3:45 AM
September 05, 2008 | 12:25 AM

September 06, 2008 | 5:57 PM
September 06, 2008 | 5:54 PM
September 06, 2008 | 3:14 PM

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

September 05, 2008 | 1:35 PM
September 03, 2008 | 1:01 PM
September 02, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
04.06.2008
In the Clinton Bunker


How fitting that, on the night Barack Obama finally claimed the Democratic nomination, Hillary Clinton delivered her non-concession speech from a concrete bunker. To reach the Baruch College gymnasium where Hillary spoke with such surprising defiance her supporters had to descend two flights below street level. The thick subterranean walls blocked out cell phone and BlackBerry signals, and no televisions were provided in the main event hall, thereby insulating Hillary’s cheering supporters (intentionally, some theorized) from the dispiriting events unfolding at the Xcel Center in Minneapolis.

In the bunker there exists a different reality. In the bunker, Hillary is the winner: of the popular vote, of a series of big swing states, of the authentic American vote. In the bunker, Hillary is introduced by the indefatiguable Terry McAuliffe as "the next President of the United States!" When asked about the reality outside the bunker—that Obama supporters were in a minor rage over Hillary’s speech-- McAuliffe looked at me incredulously. “Tonight was Hillary’s night!” he exclaimed. “We won tonight! We won in South Dakota! We keep winning!”

And so Hillary is embarking on yet another listening tour. She is asking her determined followers—like the one here wearing a “REAL MEN vote Hillary” pin—what she should do next. The kabuki listening tour is a hoary old Clinton device. When Bill Clinton ran for re-election as governor in 1990, he promised Arkansans not to run for president before his term had ended. Two years later, he was touring the state, asking for their “permission” to break his pledge. As luck would have it, Bill got the answer he was looking for.

And so will Hillary. Attending an event like tonight’s helps to explain how Hillary carries on in the face of it all. She spends her days surrounded by people who believe in her passionately--who "grab my hand or grip my arm, to look me in my eyes and tell me, don’t quit, keep fighting," as she put it in a campaign email tonight--and all the moreso the more hopeless her cause seems. These people will undoubtedly tell her to carry on. That much was clear from the chant of “Denver! Denver!” which came up tonight, and which drew no strong rebuke.

But in reality, it’s hard to imagine Hillary taking her claim to the nomination all the way to the convention. She may feel defiant, and perhaps is even ‘getting back’ at Obama, in some sense, for perceived slights against her. (This week Bill Clinton said he believes Obama “gets other people to slime her.” And one Clintonite tonight ruefully recalled for me the way Obama smothered her May 13 West Virginia victory by rolling out his endorsement from John Edwards, and also the general-election oriented “victory lap” he took in Iowa after her win in Kentucky a week later.) Or she may be trying to exercise leverage for some hidden goal, like the settling of her campaign debt. Most likely, after 16 years as a party leader, she feels entitled to relinquish the stage on her own terms, at a time of her own choosing.

Who knows when that time will come. In the press filing center tonight the weary hacks, bathed in a grim fluorescent glare, gathered round a pair of giant TV screens and watched as Obama declared himself the Democratic nominee. After that historical moment, I strolled back into the hall where Hillary had just spoken. She and Bill were still there, working the crowd, with perhaps a couple hundred committed supporters jostling to shake their hands, give them gifts, urge her not to quit. Over the PA system blared a song with the refrain, “this is our country, this is our country.” Down in the bunker, it always will be.

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 12:38 AM with 52 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!

roidubouloi said:

Starve the beast.  

As with any unwilling transfer of power, Obama must now gather up Hillary's important/notable supporters and make them his own.  They will soon forget her, as they have not loyalty, only interests, like states.  And then she will whither.  What he must NOT do is be perceived as giving her much attention or concern or worrying about what she is going to do.  That would make him appear ineffectual and under her thumb.  

He must simply gather up the reins of power in the party, quickly, and push aside those whom he does not want to embrace.

June 4, 2008 12:56 AM

roidubouloi said:

By those he does not want to embrace, I mean the likes of Harold Ickes, Lanny Davis, etc.

June 4, 2008 1:08 AM

maxblum13 said:

she asked for voter feedback in her speech, so I replied.  I pointed out that she has lost, and that for the sake of the policies she so fervently supports, she should get behind the democratic nominee, Barack Obama.  I encourage others to send polite messages along the same line, because I think it's the only thing we can do.

June 4, 2008 1:11 AM

sleepyavl said:

maxblum13, I also sent her feedback. I said she lost and that it would be a huge disadvantage for her to seek or accept a VP nomination. His supporters would ALWAYS blame her for anything bad in his campaign or administration, while he would ALWAYS get the credit for anything good.

Her best option is to get out now, support Obama and wait for 2012 - or later. Her time could come again.

June 4, 2008 1:35 AM

GSpinks said:

Has anyone else picked up on the irony of the facility's name, or am I imagining things?

June 4, 2008 1:53 AM

liberal reformer said:

Concerning the anti-Hillary obsessives out here, I wonder if any are on the Secret Service watch list. A name or two especially comes to mind. That thought just popped into my head this late evening as I was reading the blogs. My brother was obsessive-compulsive and he deteriorated terribly before his untimely death last year. The fixation and the vehemence of some anti-Hillaristas put me in mind of him.

June 4, 2008 1:55 AM

jemerk said:

Please underslime the kabuki bus or underbus the kabuki slime or somehow get rid of them all.

June 4, 2008 1:55 AM

dylanposer said:

If the trope that emerged from tonight's anointment is that Barack Obama has "won the presidency" rather than "won the nomination", I think he's got November in the bag.

June 4, 2008 2:24 AM

ralphnelle said:

Nicely done. This is a piece of political poetry.

June 4, 2008 3:11 AM

gennitydo said:

I thought the best part of the speech was: "You have voted because you wanted to take back the White House, and because of you, we won together the swing states necessary to get to 270 electoral votes."

See?  You didn't realize that she has ALREADY WON the Presidency!

Can you imagine how biased the MSM must be not to even have reported this!

June 4, 2008 3:29 AM

GoodLiberal said:

How much of this is about her V-P prospects (which seems to be the assumption in the MSM) and how much of it is about recouping some money for her campaign debt?  This was her last big chance to direct people to her website (to tell her what to do...).  No outgoings now, and I am sure that some people will donate to encourage her on...

June 4, 2008 5:16 AM

Rhubarbs said:

That was not a non-concession speech. Hillary simply delivered the nomination acceptance speech she hoped to give in Denver, plus a few paragraphs about "next road I travel."

And thank heavens she lost the nomination: It was clear last night that she would have made John Kerry's 2004 nomination speech sound like FDR.

June 4, 2008 7:09 AM

aeromonas said:

Geez, LR, you're in an uncharacteristically foul mood today/yesterday.  Speculating about whether posters her are on a Secret Service watch list?  Come on.  When has ANYONE here come within a mile of advocating violence against Hillary Clinton?

June 4, 2008 9:22 AM

ratnerstar said:

libref, the secret service would need to multiply in size by several orders of magnitude if they wanted to start investigating every person on the Internet who didn't like some politician.

June 4, 2008 9:38 AM

michael said:

FLASH! The Obama Fall Campaign Train left the station weeks ago.  They are organizing and have more than a plan for the Summer. They long ago shifted to, "Raise your hand and tell us when you can take a week or more and work a state for Barack." (HRC needs visits to her website to pay off family debt)

I was stupid enough yesterday to reply to Michael but I hope Hillary wasn't stupid enough to take me seriously. Remember, I saw the headline " What Will She Do? ?" and I asked "What does she want?".

I don't consider either question to be more than a curiosity now. Nope, I don't care today.

Tens of thousands of people and the national press will follow Obama because he knows where he's going and he know what he's doing.  

No, I don't know if the Clintons have the power too keep millions of Democrats from voting but that is on McCain's wish list. She can refuse to join Obama and even form the Hillarycrats and share a place in history with Strom Thurmond.  

But I really don't have any confidence in any Clinton strategy. Remember, they had a plan for the "long term" which they defined by "wrapped up" on February 5th. It didn't work & after that they began their loser streak which is only one reason they failed to secure the nomination.

When Obama set forth his Summer Campaign he wasn't asking supporters "what he should do" he asked "how could they help". The 20,000 in his crowd last night are fired up, ready to go and they are paying their way.

Hillary and her supporters could add value to the cause of the Democratic Party and Barack has formally extended the invitation to join with him. I think the choice for Hillary is obvious: "Are you with the Democratic Party or are you against us?"

June 4, 2008 9:51 AM

hayleykelse said:

"Most likely, after 16 years as a party leader, she feels entitled to relinquish the stage on her own terms, at a time of her own choosing."

Duh, Michael.  You buried your lead.  THAT'S the reason.  Funny how you mentioned it last.   Why is this so hard to comprehend or have sympathy for?  And why do all reporters have to think alilke? Can't there be any independent thought and reasoning?  I wish you had more contrarians among your ranks.  For me, if everyone's thinking it, I start questioning it.  You may ultimately agree, but at least you have thought it through, from all angles (not just Obama's). As a reporter, you should try it sometime.  You might just start a trend.

June 4, 2008 9:52 AM

BHLnyc said:

What will probably drive Hillary to close things down is when she realizes that she's become a national punchline, like Francisco Franco still being dead. No one wants to go out as a joke, but that's where she's headed.

June 4, 2008 9:54 AM

roidubouloi said:

I disagree, hayleylese.  Iif you have respect for the voters and for American democracy, and if you genuinely are in politics not for personal glory and self-aggrandizement but as a public calling, you do NOT in fact get to relinquish the stage on your own terms and at the time of your own choosing.   You do so, graciously, once the voters have had their say, whether that say be direct or mediated through representatives and delegates.

The entire point about what is so wrong with Hillary's behavior is that she is once again putting her own ego ahead of the norms of political behavior and the interests of the Democratic party.  There simply is no excuse.  She is hardly the first candidate to lose a close election and has no claim to exemption from the loyalty that her party rightly expects of her.  That is the bargain.  We work for you and you work for us.  Only for Hillary, it has always been a one-way street.  Hilllary works for Hillary and we are supposed to work for Hillary.  In microcosm, this is exactly why she deserved to lose and why in fact she has lost.

June 4, 2008 10:05 AM

lymon1 said:

The opositte of love isn't hate, it's indifference -- if I were Obama I'd politely ignore Hillary's sputtering and let her come to him.  I've wondered many times here if the Obama campaign is going to be deflated once Hillary is gone and all these Hillary-centric TNR posts don't disuade me from that.  People forget that there was a lot of "anyone but Hillary" passion even before Obama announced.  

In other words, can we move on now?  

June 4, 2008 10:15 AM

Rhubarbs said:

aero, I'll cop to it: before libref showed up, I advocated violence against Hillary. Beheading her, to be specific. But I was speaking within the context of a larger metaphor that Hillary's campaign was more like a zombie than a vampire.

I now start the countdown to the inevitable lecture from libref about how it is "uncivil" and "inappropriate" to compare political campaigns to movie monsters, even in jest, and even when that jest contains a deliberate kernel of self-mockery, because we should never laugh at ourselves or our politicians because Life Is Too Serious to have a little fun from time to time and by the way, every conservative columnist is actually pretty smart most of the time and a better writer than anyone here.

Not that libref ever uses run-on sentences or anything.

June 4, 2008 10:17 AM

achester99 said:

The XCel Energy Center is in St. Paul, not Minneapolis

June 4, 2008 10:18 AM

ironyroad said:

How has she been "a party leader for sixteen years"?  She was first lady for eight, but so were other women and I don't think anyone refers to Laura Bush as a "party leader."  Hillary only got her Senate seat in 2000, and certainly had an unusual status due to both her ambition and her role as the ex-president's wife, but I hadn't noticed her having any great influence on party policy or direction.  Eleanor Roosevelt was a party leader, especially after FDR's death.  Biden, Kerry, Richardson, Dodd and Bill Clinton could all be designated "party leaders."  She was a first lady who became a junior senator who became a presidential hopeful, that's all.

June 4, 2008 10:26 AM

michael said:

hayleykelse  cited Michael, "...she feels entitled to relinquish the stage on her own terms, at a time of her own choosing." and believes it is not only a reason to not concede but wrote "THAT'S the reason.". No, the stage was not hers last night and any candidate who refuses to concede doesn't respect their party or understand the difference between a democracy and a monarchy.  

"Entitled"?  She was a Vice President and is currently a Senator.  In the United States, neither title provides a reason for a losing candidate to not "relinquish the stage" and no title allows a candidate to think "on her own terms, at a time of her own choosing.".

Until the Clinton's realize it pisses off a lot of people when they exhibit that sense they're "entitled"? Well, a lot of people will continue to be pissed off with the Clinton's.

June 4, 2008 10:30 AM

Rhubarbs said:

BHLnyc, nobody wants to become a joke. Yet they do anyway. If Hillary had the empathy or self-reflectiveness to avoid becoming a national joke, she'd have turned away from her current descent into joke-hood months ago. Nobody wants to be in a car wreck, either, but still most of us keep our foot on the accelerator even after we've passed the speed limit.

Wanting to avoid a fate and being capable of avoiding that fate are two very different things, and that right there is the secret key to all human drama.

June 4, 2008 10:32 AM

michael said:

roidubouloi...I usually don't waste space with ME TOO!, but you're spot on and you seem to express a sense I've been trying convey for weeks. But our culture and politics doesn't reward ego and selfishness for long.  One can borrow the spotlight but one can't steal it.

June 4, 2008 10:42 AM

Lundell said:

I'm an Obama supporter, but I feel for Hillary at a level.  I've been involved in politics/government/policy all my adult life and at some point, the loser of any particular fight has to admit that and move on.  So I have seen this before, although certainly not in the same magnitude nor under a glaring media spotlight.

My guess is she will come to a relatively quick resolution here.  She has the right as a candidate who has worked very hard to at least dictate her own exit, but she must exit at some point or she only serves to blunt the party's effectiveness as it prepares for what should be a monumental battle through the general election season.  

Everyone is talking race/gender in assessing the race, but I have always believed (and admittedly this needs to be taken with a grain of salt because I am a white male who, having not directly experienced them, cannot totally comprehend the horrors of racism and sexism), but this is also generational.  As a baby boomer (and not all that proud to be one), I would hope that my generation would take this opportunity to pass the reins to the coming generations--which faces different challenges that call for a lot of creativity--in a much more orderly fashion that those reins were handed to us.

So I'm willing to give Hillary a reasonable time to do what she must do.

June 4, 2008 11:09 AM

hrlngrv said:

Maybe Hill and Ralph could form a unity ticket.

June 4, 2008 11:21 AM

LISAH said:

WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Obama-bots out in force. Any chance you widdle wiberals are gonna get in touch with reality any time soon and see how close some of the recent polls are putting Obama and McCain? (And Roid -- I'm guessing we'd be seeing similar ##s with Clinton. And by the way ..."she will wither" so poetic, and so typical of Obama-bot fuzziness.) It's gonna be a tough road to November.

BTW, GSpinks -- what's your problem with the name of the facility?  Baruch College is a unit of City University and it's had the name, like, a real long time....

And all good readers -- Clinton just told AIPAC conference that she knows Obama is a strong supporter of Israel: "I know Senator Obama will be a friend of Israel."

June 4, 2008 11:29 AM

LISAH said:

And Roid -- I had posted this over at the earlier thread in response to your "answer" to me, so in case you aren't checking back:

LISAH said:

Roid -- please read more carefully. I've made consistently clear (that word again) that I didn't and don't want either one of them. And please read more carefully as to who was and wasn't race-baiting back -- oh so long ago this spring. Both campaigns misstepped, and both said stupid things -- but neither said anything racist. All you widdle wiberals are just so so so sensitive and so so so silly. Get the f**k over it and maybe, just maybe, this country will get over the race issue, especially given the evolving demographics. Gender -- now that's another issue.

And I repeat -- I don't/didn't want Clinton and I don'/didn't want Obama as the Democratic candidate.

But I will vote Democratic, for Obama, in November. And I desperately hope that all the angry widdle wiberals  saying they'll stay home or vote for McCain (gasp!!!) will overcome their nonsense and vote Democratic.

And I also repeat: learn to read what people say, rather than provide your own interpretations of what they say.

June 4, 2008 11:07 AM

June 4, 2008 11:35 AM

roidubouloi said:

michael,

When I was chair of a local Democratic committee in NYS, I had two kinds of members.  One, inevitably the smaller group, were the people who did all the work.  The second, larger group, were the people who gave advice to everyone else about what they were doing wrong.  From the workers, I would listen to anything.  By their labor for the cause, their demonstration with their sweat that they understood themselves to be part of a common enterprise, I felt they had earned the right to say absolutely whatever was on their minds about anything, me, my leadership, whatever.  I trusted that they were there for the good of the party and so I was not only tolerant of whatever ideas or criticism they wanted to express but anxious for it. You never know where good ideas will come from and I had not a shred of doubt about their motives.

The rest of them, the critics, were simply infuriating.  For me, Hillary is in the infuriating group because I have never seen any evidence that she is in it for the common good.  Whenever we asked Schumer for some kind of help, a speech, fundraising leads, whatever, he helped us with something.  Whenever we asked Hillary for help, we got nothing.  Not once was she willing to help the local party succeed although she appeared often in my town to raise money for herself.  That's when my doubts about her began, and as I have watched her career in the senate, and certainly during this campaign, my alienation has grown into an ocean-sized gulf.  

Hillary never seems to miss an opportunity to place her own gratification and aggrandizement ahead of the party she claims to belong to.  Last night was just one more example.

*  *  *

Apropos of nothing, someone mentioned that Al Gore is very charming and personable in person.  I have never met him or Bill Clinton (beyond the receiving line handshake that is), but a close friend of mine who worked in the household of a Very Famous Person who used to host both Bill and Al said that Al was in fact extremely funny and charming in person and that Bill, in contrast, was aloof and kind of a stiff (and she is a really cute redhead too, so we know that wasn't the issue).  Circa 2000 that is.

June 4, 2008 11:35 AM

roidubouloi said:

Nader/Clinton or Clinton/Nader?  

The thing is, Nader has more experience as a campaigner at the presidential level, but Im not sure he has "crossed the commander-in-chief threshold" the way Hillary has.

June 4, 2008 11:37 AM

Daily Intelligencer - New York Magazine said:

Like genius 'Lost' mastermind Ben, does Clinton have some kind of crazy scheme up her sleeve (or a time-travel chamber?) to wrest control of the nomination from Obama? Or is it simply that she's angling for a spot on the ticket?

June 4, 2008 11:39 AM

desertdog said:

HOWEVER...........the fact still remains that Obama needs her supporters in November or he will not be President.  Period.  There aren't enough so-called independents to swing key states his way without her 48% of the Democratic base.  He does have to make some kind of a gesture, not to her personally, but to her voters.  He went a long way toward that end in last night's speech.

Fifty-two percent (Demo voters for Obama) of thirty-five percent (registered Democrats nationally) does not even come close to an Electoral College victory.  He has to increase the party base totals, and there is no statistical way to do that without a major portion of her voters.  Probably something like 75%.  Plus, he has to find a way to siphon off at least half of the 30% who call themselves independents.  This is especially true for red states since they are likely to fall into line and go red in the GE.  It only takes one more vote than half to flip all of a state's electoral votes to candidate A or candidate B.  

It's like playing Double or Nothing.

June 4, 2008 11:45 AM

WoodyBombay said:

lymon asks why we can't move on.

That's almost tragically poignant.

June 4, 2008 11:49 AM

roidubouloi said:

Well, lisah, I may have misread, but I thought that the gist of what you had to say was that the "widdle wiberals" had gotten just the sort of identity politics race that they love.

I don't, although I certainly do consider myself a "wiberal," and I think it was entirely fair to respond by noting that Obama did not seek that kind of race either.  He bent over backwards to avoid it.  Hillary made sex an issue, Hillary made race an issue.  But, I'll give you this much, she's no "wiberal" so we cannot lay the race-baiting and victim shtick at the feet of the wiberals.  It must be laid at the feet of Hillary, the crypto-Republican.

If you do not see Hillary as having engaged in race-baiting or cynically casting herself as a victim of sexism, in both cases for political gain, I'm not going to argue the point.  I will simply say that I do see it that way.

I honor the fact that despite your distaste for both Hillary and Obama, you are none-the-less to put that aside and vote Democratic in November.

June 4, 2008 11:49 AM

Ghost in the Machine said:

"In the bunker there exists a different reality. In the bunker, Hillary is the winner: of the popular vote, of...

June 4, 2008 12:15 PM

liberal reformer said:

Aeromonas: I was serious. Anyone with an IQ of 80 or so and above would probably be careful to not post violent fantasies out here. I have been schooled forever in the vituperative ways of "tolerant" liberals but some of the stuff out here is of a different order. That is what put me in my mind of my brother.

Rhubarbs: You can mock my take on civility all you like. I am not always civil to the uncivil, just as I am not always tolerant of the intolerant. To be otherwise is either to be (1) A doormat or (2) To be hypocrites scoring cheap debating points, of which that number is legion on this website.

June 4, 2008 12:19 PM

WoodyBombay said:

The three key words in that entire blog entry are these: "she feels entitled"

That could be the title of the post. Hell, that could just be the post.

"She feels entitled."

June 4, 2008 12:20 PM

LISAH said:

Roid -- you continue to prove that you are the kind of liberal (whatever the word might or might not mean in the current political circus) who is counterproductive precisely because you don't recognize the extent to which you engage in the divisiveness of identity politics. You're just plain politically correct, and political correctness continues to damage whatever liberalism today, and it continues to damage the Democratic party.

This isn't the right forum (and I'm on 2 deadlines) to get into a content analysis of the Clinton (both of them), Ferraro, Obama (both of them), and other statements, or to analyze the tiny little details as to the significance of all the Wright, Hagee, etc.-lunatic eruptions over the past 1/2-year or so...But such efforts just wouldn't support your views...in my view, at least.

And while I know you don't mean to be condescending, that's sorta the way your last sentence about my voting intent comes across. I'm voting Democratic, and I hope all disappointed Clinton supporters will, because my main concern in this election is, pure and simple,  the federal courts. We gotta save them from the Republicans...

And I still want Biden. Or Dodd. Or maybe Richardson. Or maybe Edwards.

June 4, 2008 12:28 PM

desertdog said:

A McCain presidency would be a continuing disaster.  Please, Clinton voters, be realistic and VOTE FOR YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS.  Support Barack Obama with all your hearts and minds.

I voted for Hillary Clinton in my state's early primary, mainly because of Bill Clinton's successful presidency, but I will now support the party's nominee, Barack Obama.  I really beleive there are many out there like me, despite the volume level of the die-hards.  It's not about gender or race or socioeconomic status, it's about pride in our country and pride in ourselves.  We cannot afford to miss this opportunity to take back our country from the dark forces of Reagan-Bush.

Hillary....it's time to move on.  Concede while you still have some clout.  Obama won the nomination fair and square.

June 4, 2008 12:37 PM

LISAH said:

Would also add, to all the Obama-bots here, that your comments tend to be far more nasty and destructive re Clinton than the Clinton supporters are toward your guy. You're all going 'round the twist on her speech last night -- totally over-interpreting and reading your worship of Obama into it as you try to take it apart. It was gracious (you guys seem to love that word) and she pretty much signalled that she would be supportive of Obama and the party. She sent out further signals in her AIPAC speech today. You are the haters -- time to stop.

AND I REPEAT: I didn't want either of these 2; I just hope the Dems aren't committing suicide yet again this year -- a year that should have been a Democratic walkover, but now is looking kinda chancy...

June 4, 2008 12:52 PM

Typical said:

After many long months of reading the insightful, funny, bracing, and occasionally exasperating comments of TNR's subscribers, I finally bit the bullet and signed on.  So take note, editors: that last $40.00 subscription should be shared amongst Rhubarbs, ironyroad, thejaunty, et al. whose commentary brings me here as much as the insights of the staff writers.

Like Jonathan Cohn in an earlier Plank post, this morning finds me MORE upset by Hillary's speech than I was when I went to bed.  It was the opposite of what was needed, and to echo an increasingly common theme I've read here it is truly indicative of why she is utterly unsuitable to her life's ambition.  If you had told me in the year 2000 (or the year 2006 for that matter) that I would come to loathe the Clintons, I would have laughed in your face.

I think the sooner one of her close advisors has the courage to let the sunlight into the bunker and point out that the Empeor has no clothes the better.  This has gone on long enough, and there's entirely too much at stake.  Yesterday's commentary piece buried in the NYT about Roe v. Wade should be enough to make any reasonable Democrat focus on what has to happen now.  It's not about racism vs. sexism in the past year.  It's about choice vs. coat-hangers in the coming generation.

June 4, 2008 12:52 PM

jmkerr said:

A McCain presidency would be a big step up from the Obamaton.

Remember, the best way to show the Democrats how wrong they were in thinking that voters would support any empty suit with a (D) next to his name is to ensure that candidate loses.

Vote McCain.

www.dontbeagooddemocrat.com

June 4, 2008 12:59 PM

ironyroad said:

Welcome aboard Typical -- hope you'll join in the fray.  And remember, the irritating we do immediately, the exasperating takes a little time!

June 4, 2008 2:32 PM

tembrach said:

HRC has proven the ability to win the big states. Barry only wins the boutique states, where non-Americans live (i.e. CT, VT, OR etc)

Come the general election, we will be annihilated if Barry carries our banner into battle. The right will triumph again.

The question - and it is a simple one - is this

Are we going to go lose an election we should readily win because Barry's charm swayed the superdelegates? Or are we going go go with a lady who will seek quick and sure payback against the extreme right-wing?

The answer to me is  quite simple

HRC in 2008!!

June 4, 2008 2:54 PM

stgla said:

Mike,  This was a very insightful and well written post.  This should have been a NYT column or a WaPo op ed.  Must-read.  Well done, sir.

June 4, 2008 3:09 PM

skipper2379 said:

She is a lot like John Mellencamp--all the cliched themes of Springsteen, but with much worse lyrics.

June 4, 2008 3:19 PM

GSpinks said:

LISAH,

but...Baruch = Barack, no?

June 4, 2008 4:58 PM

anonevent said:

LISAH, I would say the nastiness at best is a wash, because I can't even read through the stuff on the "pro"-Clinton sites.  "pro" is in quotes because I do believe that Clinton's delay in conceding may be a strategic move on her part to let her supporters come to terms with the loss, because I think she may have created a monster that may be too big for her to control any more.  If she had said "Obama has won the nomination and I am suspending the campaign," the supporters might have turned on her.

June 4, 2008 6:12 PM

HarryPutnam said:

When Terry McAuliffe introduces Hillary as "the next President of the United States!", as Obama wins the nomination with more than enough delegates.....

Doesn't that make you feel kind of sickened and disgusted by his patently senseless adoration of Hillary?  What on earth is going on here?

I'm new here and definitely not a political whiz or clever analyst but something like that just seems so starkly ridiculous... makes me wonder if anyone would ever hire Terry for some kind of promotional job again.

That kind of statement and many of his earlier ones leading up to it should make him nearly unemployable ..eh?

How can this non-sense gain any kind of footing?  

June 4, 2008 6:38 PM

blackton said:

It is over right, oh you mean its not. just checking in...and checking out again.

tembrech, brilliant satire, as usual.

June 4, 2008 6:47 PM

kikiduck said:

To those who are concerned about Obama losing Clinton's 18 million supporters: do you think all these democrats are going to vote for McCain just because their candidate lost the nomination? I can't imagine that happening. Some may not vote, but I doubt most will want a republican just like the one who's in there now to win the general election. After all, Clinton and Obama are very close on the issues. He will carry out the wishes and tend to the needs of her supporters. They'll vote for her.

June 5, 2008 11:34 AM