By Greg Sargent - May 7, 2008, 2:51PM
The Washington Blade, which
endorsed Hillary, calls on her to step out of the race today in an
editorial penned by the paper's editor....
Last night's results in the North Carolina and Indiana primaries have left Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton out of options. She ran a tough and spirited campaign that will be talked about for a generation. But it's over.
The time has come for Clinton to adopt a gracious and conciliatory tone, end her campaign and endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president.
If any of you see other papers doing the same, please send 'em my way.
<...>
That that leaves her with three options.
First, keep fighting like nothing has changed. When their candidate is challenged, Clinton supporters respond with
huge monetary shows of support. And when their careers are challenged, the Clintons themselves kick it into another gear.
Hillary Clinton can double down on the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky (where she leads by large margins), ratchet up the calls to seat Michigan and Florida, make a zillion phone calls to superdelegates every day, and hope that Obama gets caught in another Reverend Wright-esque sandstorm. (It wouldn't hurt to drop the
gas tax pander.) Rumors persist about one last piece of truly nuclear opposition research the Clinton campaign has held back about Obama. It could release some such thing;
the only danger is that if Clinton does not win the nomination, the Democratic nominee may be fatally wounded. But wounding the nominee is obviously not a concern if the Clinton campaign chooses this option, anyway. Second, she can drop out immediately. Despite the calls for this that are certain to ring through Obama-friendly parts of the blogosphere today, this may not be the best option for Obama.
If Clinton drops out this week, Obama may lose the upcoming primaries in West Virginia and Kentucky to someone who is not on the ballot. Third, lay the groundwork for a graceful exit in a few weeks. Assuming that Clinton sees the end of the road on the horizon, this choice has several advantages over option number two. First, the Clintons have donated a lot of their own money to the campaign; staying in and continuing to raise funds allows them to retire some of that debt.
Second, the last two weeks of the campaign can take a conciliatory tone, attempting to convince Democratic voters who have cast their lot with Clinton that Obama ain't so bad after all. This would go a long way in rehabilitating Bill and Hillary Clinton's reputations within the Democratic Party, and position Hillary for a vice presidential selection, should she be interested. If she hopes to be a future Senate Majority Leader or a candidate in 2012, this route may be the necessary one.
At this point, the race is all about Hillary Clinton's psychology. She and she alone has to choose one of these three options. Bill Clinton will likely be part of the conversation, and Chelsea may be too. But ultimately, the person who has put in the most work perhaps of anyone in America over the last year has to either accept that she has lost the fight of her life, or decide that she is willing to continue down what becomes an increasingly untenable road. The media's collective mind seems to be made up, meaning that if Clinton continues on, she will have to do so under a chorus of calls for her to euthanize her campaign.
By her campaign's statements today, she appears to be taking the first path.
by kos
Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:45:08 AM PDT
So Clinton vows to stay in through the end, and surrogates like James Carville are talking tough. But the feeling is that it's all posturing as the Clinton Camp negotiates for 1) having Obama pay off her campaign debt, and/or 2) a spot on the ticket as VP.
Debt The debt is kind of hard to swallow. On the one hand, Obama's money needs to start being spent against McCain, not to bail out a campaign that racked up the debt after it was clear that she had no shot at the nomination, and debt that was used to attack and smear Obama. Given that the Clintons have more than enough money and fundraising ability to retire their own debt, there really should be no reason to continue harming the anti-McCain effort by draining a portion of Obama's coffers.
On the other hand, let's say that debt is around $10 million. Obama will have to spend more than that to continue fending Clinton off, while delaying the effective start of the general election. Ultimately, it may be a bitter pill to swallow, but one that if the Clintons' insist on (to the detriment of their party), Obama would have little choice but to agree.
Vice Presidency As for the vice presidency, that one should be a non-starter from the start. This isn't a call based on bitterness or hate, but practical politics. The VP candidate needs to be a subservient figure, someone who won't outshine or overshadow the presidential candidate. Let's face it, Hillary is too strong a personality to play that role (not anymore), and the drama the Clinton family carries with them would be a distraction from Obama's core message. Seeing how Bill Clinton has comported himself this primary season, no one wants to see him around the rest of the year. He's been a disgrace.
Furthermore, at a time that the GOP is fractured, demoralized and broke, few figures can bring in the dough than the Clintons. There's no reason to give Republicans a boost by putting Clinton on the ticket.
What about her positives? She doesn't deliver geography (few vice presidents do, remember Edwards), she doesn't add "experience" to the ticket, since she always overplayed her credentials on that front, she probably brings some credibility on health care, but little else. There's the "unify the party" thing, but that's overplayed as well. In 2000, McCain supporters claimed they wouldn't support Bush, and they did. And in 2008, McCain's enemies (and he has many in his party) claimed they'd never support him, and yet now they do. Few in our party want 100 years of war, the end of Roe v Wade, and the continuation of the Bush/Cheney agenda.
And then there's demographics. Obama does far better with independents than Clinton ever did, and let's not kid ourselves that she can deliver working class white males to the party during the general election any more effectively than John Edwards did in 2004, or than Obama can do on his own. She does have cred with Latino voters and obviously is beloved by women, especially those who lived through the women's movement in the 60s and 70s. For them, a female president would be a culmination of everything they ever fought for. Ebony had that wonderful magazine cover with Obama and the headline, "In our lifetimes". It's inspiring for African Americans as Clinton's chances were for women.
more(1) CLINTON (today at West Virginia news conference):QUESTION: Does your statement today mean that you intend to stay in this race through the vote on the convention floor?
CLINTON: Well, I'm staying in this race until there's a nominee. And I obviously am going to work as hard as I can to become that nominee. That is what I've done; that's what I'm continuing to do.
I believe that I'm the stronger candidate against Senator McCain. And I believe I would be the best president among the three of us running. So we will continue to contest these elections and move forward.
link Update, more divisiness from Hillary campaign.
Audio:
Clinton Campaign Conference CallLate Update: Atrios, commenting on the above,
writes:
There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the reality of race and politics, and there's nothing wrong with politicians targeting their campaigns and messaging towards various subgroups.
What the Clinton campaign is doing is saying that Obama has electability problems, and using their support from white voters as evidence of that. That's a wee bit problematic, and not just because it doesn't follow logically any more than the other electability arguments such as Obama can't win the election because he can't win the primary in big states.
link by mayan
Wed May 07, 2008 at 11:16:10 AM PDT
We have seen many versions of HRC. Sometimes several in 24 hour period. We've been treated to "Stern Hillary," "Scornful Hillary," "Tuzla Warrior Hillary," "Gracious and Conciliatory Hillary," "Undead Hillary," and "Bluecollar Hillary." Now, apparently, we are being treated to "Bull Conners Hillary."
We all knew it was coming. The tentacles of race baiting snaked out of Bill's mouth, Rendell's mouth and Ferraro's mouth. Now, however, I sickens me to report that it is about the only them left to HRC's campaign. Let's call it like it is. Her last remaining stand is racism. Pure and simple. "No you can't."
Last night while the likes of Russert and the MSNBC crew were assuring us that HRC would continue the remaining days of her campaign on high ground, Begala was suggesting that Obama couldn't win because of the "white" vote. This morning, Wolfson, at his press conference, suggested the same thing.
Now, apparently, the Clinton camp is suggesting that the massive loss they suffered was a victory of sort because they won the "white" vote in North Carolina.
I found this at TPM and find it disturbing to the point of head exploding:
Garin argued that the North Carolina contest, which Obama won by 14 points, represented "progress" for Hillary because she did better among white voters there than she did in Virginia.
Garin said that the Virginia electorate was the "closest white electorate in the country" to North Carolina, and added that Hillary "started even" among whites in North Carolina, and "ended up earning a significant win of 24 points."
<snip>
Put in the context of the Hillary campaign's chief argument that she's the more electable Dem, Garin's overall implication here is that her success among white voters in North Carolina yesterday is "progress" in the sense that it strengthens her case for electability.
In other words, it's an explicit, and unabashed, linking of her claim of electability to her success among whites.
Greg Sargent at TPMI was content to see how HRC would continue the campaign. Olive branches and everything. Not no more. I cannot remain silence in the face of this new attempt at racial wedge politics.
This is inexcusable and dangerous. It is morally repugnant. I call upon the SDs of the Democratic Party to stop this now. Let this shit come from the Republicans. Not from within the party. Call her out on this, people.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
