Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
The sense of grievance that permeates the Clinton campaign hurts her and the Dems.
The key to the winner winning is how the loser loses. Those cautionary words were spoken some weeks ago by Rep. Rahm Emanuel, who is close to both the Clintons and Barack Obama and whose hardball style of politics helped win back the House for the Democrats. However the nomination fight is resolved, it must be seen as fair by supporters of the two candidates, who have run an excruciatingly close race.
If that's the goal, it doesn't help that a group of women plan on protesting outside the hotel Saturday where the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee is meeting. These women are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. But their complaint, that Hillary Clinton may be denied the nomination because she's the victim of sexism, doesn't hold water.
Sexism by whom? By the press? By Barack Obama? To be sure, there have been sexist comments. Some women are still smarting over the time when Obama pulled out Clinton's chair after a debate, seeing it as chauvinist as opposed to gentlemanly. But highlighting sexism undercuts Clinton's argument that she is the more electable of the two candidates. How can she be more electable if sexism is this strong within the Democratic primaries? What would happen in November? If she's the candidate, would hordes of men see the light?
Clinton discovered her inner feminist late in the race, when mobilizing women was one of the last cards she had left to play. Women of her generation have experienced the indignities of an oppressed minority (even though women are more than half the population), and they rallied to her cause. A classmate of Hillary's from Wellesley told me she never considered herself a feminist: "I never marched … but this campaign turned me into one." She is furious about the Hillary nutcracker, which has stainless steel thighs and is available for purchase at the newsstand at many airports.
Younger women do not feel the lash of gender the way their elders wish they would. Professor Karen O'Connor teaches a weekend course on women and politics at American University. Her course this year coincided with the primary season, and to show how a caucus works she asked Hillary supporters to assemble on one side of the room, Obama supporters on the other, with undecided students in the middle. In the class of 25 there were only three men, and O'Connor assumed, wrongly as it turned out, that the pro-Hillary forces would dominate. Three female students stood up for Hillary, 17 students backed Obama, and five were undecided.
O'Connor founded the Institute of Women and Politics at AU. As a woman over 50 who has devoted her professional life to cultivating women leaders and looking ahead to the day when she might see a woman president, she learned a hard truth: that for these women, youth trumps gender. "I don't vote for a woman just because she's a woman," a former student told O'Connor. "I do," O'Connor responded, explaining that Clinton and Obama are "identical" on the issues. "This is gender versus race." O'Connor has been quoted saying it will be generations, plural, before another woman will be positioned as the heir apparent the way Clinton was at the outset of the race.
Blaming gender bias may help some women vent about an outcome they didn't want, but there are more mundane reasons for what looks like a failed nomination fight. If Clinton had not voted for the resolution that gave President Bush the authority to wage war, the door would not have swung open for Obama to enter the race. His antiwar stance gave him a moral claim on which to stake his candidacy. Secondly, the Clinton campaign's decision to not aggressively contest the caucus states allowed Obama to build up a lead in delegates that Clinton was never able to overcome. Now Clinton supporters are arguing that caucuses are undemocratic, and if only the Democrats had the same system as the Republicans, winner-take-all in the big primary states, Hillary would be the nominee.
The sense of grievance that permeates the Clinton campaign is out of proportion to reality. Women seethe at the way Hillary's cleavage became news when a Washington Post style writer, a woman, did a feature on a lower-cut-than usual top she wore on the Senate floor. Silly and sexist, yes, but what if Bill Clinton hadn't waded into the South Carolina primary with remarks that seemed to conjoin Obama with Jesse Jackson? Would that have made a difference? Life isn't fair, but don't cry for Hillary. She's proved herself more than worthy to win; now she's got to muster the grace to lose.
.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
If that's the goal, it doesn't help that a group of women plan on protesting outside the hotel Saturday where the Democratic Party's rules and bylaws committee is meeting. These women are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore. But their complaint, that Hillary Clinton may be denied the nomination because she's the victim of sexism, doesn't hold water.
Sexism by whom? By the press? By Barack Obama? To be sure, there have been sexist comments. Some women are still smarting over the time when Obama pulled out Clinton's chair after a debate, seeing it as chauvinist as opposed to gentlemanly. But highlighting sexism undercuts Clinton's argument that she is the more electable of the two candidates. How can she be more electable if sexism is this strong within the Democratic primaries? What would happen in November? If she's the candidate, would hordes of men see the light?
Hillary hasn't said anything about the voters...she has always stated that the press is the culprit and she is right.
This title is just absurd. Eleanor is making Hillary out to be using sexism as an excuse and that is flatly untrue. What a shame.
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
After all the kicking and crying from the Clinton camp, the DNC did about the best they could to help her by following their own rules (in effect, allowing 50% voting strength), and by not caving in to the absolutely ridiculous request that Obama not be awarded any delegates from Michigan. Clinton campaigners certainly did themselves and their candidate no favors by hurling insults and catcalls at the committee and at speakers.
So now, under all the new numbers, Obama is about 66 delegates short. He'll most likely pick up 9 in Montana, 9 in South Dakota and 22 in Puerto Rico, leaving about 26 delegates short. I think rational people understand that Obama will have little difficulty picking up 26 (or so) more supers.
This puppy is over, and if the Clintons give a squat about keeping McCain out of office, they need to throw in the towel and start campaigning for the party and the country's well being. I see anything else at this point as being destructive, selfish and disloyal. If the Clinton's fornicate this up, they are done in national politics. Hillary may still wow 'em in New York, but she'll be branded a Ted Kennedy and never be seriously considered for anything national again (except maybe, Ambassador to Iraq).
All IMHO, of course...
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
After all the kicking and crying from the Clinton camp, the DNC did about the best they could to help her by following their own rules (in effect, allowing 50% voting strength), and by not caving in to the absolutely ridiculous request that Obama not be awarded any delegates from Michigan. Clinton campaigners certainly did themselves and their candidate no favors by hurling insults and catcalls at the committee and at speakers.
That was called democracy and standing up for it. I guess when you want your vote to count and screaming " take it to Denver" is considered an insult.
Quote:
So now, under all the new numbers, Obama is about 66 delegates short. He'll most likely pick up 9 in Montana, 9 in South Dakota and 22 in Puerto Rico, leaving about 26 delegates short. I think rational people understand that Obama will have little difficulty picking up 26 (or so) more supers.
I agree but the process isn't over yet and any rational person would let play out...regardless.
Quote:
This puppy is over, and if the Clintons give a squat about keeping McCain out of office, they need to throw in the towel and start campaigning for the party and the country's well being. I see anything else at this point as being destructive, selfish and disloyal. If the Clinton's fornicate this up, they are done in national politics. Hillary may still wow 'em in New York, but she'll be branded a Ted Kennedy and never be seriously considered for anything national again (except maybe, Ambassador to Iraq).
That's funny, I thought it was called a political process.
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
This is where I start being a party hack, so please excuse me. This is not personally directed at anyone, except Clinton.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
That was called democracy and standing up for it. I guess when you want your vote to count and screaming " take it to Denver" is considered an insult.
No - that was about a bunch of ignorant people screaming at the top of their lungs at a committee that they probably had no idea what their role was, nor their importance. Sure, it made for great TV. However, the reaction of the observers was entirely inappropriate for the situation. That's not how you win over the committee, or win the day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
I agree but the process isn't over yet and any rational person would let play out...regardless.
Until Tuesday. Come Wednesday morning, for the health of the party, we need to resolve this. If Clinton doesn't want to play ball, she's going to get hurt bad. Obama is in the process of assuming the leadership of the party. His people are starting to take over key posts at the DNC (which is the right of the presumptive nominee).
For her political future, and for the health of the party, she needs to step aside soon. I say June 3. That's the end of the primaries. In reality, I would say June 15 or so. Give her 2 weeks to figure out how she wants to do it.
But if she insists on going all the way to Denver - mark my words Joe - she's going to rip this party apart. We'd be lucky to keep the Senate. House should be in good shape. The Presidency will go to McCain. We'll be in a world of hurt for the next 8 years minimum - 8 years for the GOP to get their stuff together again - we'll be giving them a breather when we shouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
That's funny, I thought it was called a political process.
It is - and so is the party leadership telling Clinton behind closed doors to give it up so we can get to the big show and win it all.
lvgentleman, that about sums up what I was going to respond. Thanks!
Clinton continuing on simply because she can is destructive as hell and will accomplish absolutely nothing positive.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
Clinton continuing on simply because she can is destructive as hell and will accomplish absolutely nothing positive.
I guess we'll see... What we will see is exactly how much influence Harold Ickies has over Clinton since he reserved the right to take it to the Credentials commitee... I believe his absolute plan is to take it to the Convention.
This is where I start being a party hack, so please excuse me. This is not personally directed at anyone, except Clinton.
Never excuse yourself for expressing what you feel.
Quote:
No - that was about a bunch of ignorant people screaming at the top of their lungs at a committee that they probably had no idea what their role was, nor their importance. Sure, it made for great TV. However, the reaction of the observers was entirely inappropriate for the situation. That's not how you win over the committee, or win the day.
The spectators were showing emotion and reacting to an emotional issue. I wouldn't call them ignorant...maybe just a little emotional. I also don't think the spectators were there to win over the committee. If that were the case, maybe they should stepped up to the mic...just kidding. They did have tickets available for the event so I do think the DNC knew what was in store.
Quote:
For her political future, and for the health of the party, she needs to step aside soon. I say June 3. That's the end of the primaries. In reality, I would say June 15 or so. Give her 2 weeks to figure out how she wants to do it.
I don't agree. I would rather the SD's end this process...the way it should be.
Quote:
But if she insists on going all the way to Denver - mark my words Joe - she's going to rip this party apart. We'd be lucky to keep the Senate. House should be in good shape. The Presidency will go to McCain. We'll be in a world of hurt for the next 8 years minimum - 8 years for the GOP to get their stuff together again - we'll be giving them a breather when we shouldn't.
Look, if Obama happens to win the Presidency and we haven't made strides in getting out of Iraq, we will lose more than the senate. We got the majority not too long ago and what have we done? Wasn't it a referendum election? Don't put blame on one person when I can name a hosts of guilty people in office now .
I am telling you, it isn't going to matter when Hillary gets out of the race, I don't see Obama winning against McCain. That isn't a knock on Obama but a general is way different than a primary. You think he has it tough now? Just wait.
Quote:
It is - and so is the party leadership telling Clinton behind closed doors to give it up so we can get to the big show and win it all.
The party leadership (Obama supporters) are the only ones whispering...if what you say is true.
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
The further she goes with this, the more it appears that her/their ONLY goal is power. They can't run a fiscally sound campaign, can't keep their ducks orderly, spin their statements and reverse their tactics like it's a damn tango, whine and piss and moan and blame, and I guess they think we're all so stupid we don't see it as they're doing it. They really are disrespecting the electorate.
I assume if they have an 'October surprise,' they'll pull it out in the next couple days, because they're running out of time. Shamefully, the Clintons really did learn at Karl Rove's knee. They'll stop at nothing, and will destroy themselves and the party -- and then the nation -- in the process.
__________________
oderint dum metuant (Latin for 'let them hate, so long as they fear').
Well, in truth I'm actually not a total hawk, but I'm not a dove either -- I'm more like an angry pigeon flying over the political arena after a really big meal. -Abba Gav
Never excuse yourself for expressing what you feel.
There's a lot of animosity on this board - I did not want this post being construed as a personal attack. Tis better to be clear up front than to mop up the mess afterwards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
The spectators were showing emotion and reacting to an emotional issue. I wouldn't call them ignorant...maybe just a little emotional. I also don't think the spectators were there to win over the committee. If that were the case, maybe they should stepped up to the mic...just kidding. They did have tickets available for the event so I do think the DNC knew what was in store.
Perhaps - but it did not help their case with the committee one iota. In fact, I would bet you dollars to donuts that almost every member on that committee was tired and frustrated at the outbursts, heckling, and booing. I've been to meetings like that. I've sat on committees in those situations (non-political but public policy related). The members of the committee harden their stance and just move things along faster. You could see it by the actions of the chair at the end of the meeting. Having to be told by the Parliamentarian that you have to call for the "Against" vote? Please - that's standard, even if the vote is unamious (sp).
If the DNC sold tickets - dumb. I understand that they wanted the process to be open, but there were other ways to do that without allowing the process to be disrupted.
Like I said a couple of weeks ago - a circus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
I don't agree. I would rather the SD's end this process...the way it should be.
There you and I have a fundamental disagreement - in order to start the party healing, HRC has to suspend her run. It's that simple. Anything else, I'm afraid, will simply alienate some of her constituency further. We don't need that right now.
Unless that is the point. There have been, in some circles, some speculation that HRC has devised a strategy to split the party to make an Obama election impossible. I have not given that speculation any gravity. However, if HRC decides to take this all the way to Denver (which she could do, SD's and Party Elders be damned), in the face of certain defeat, it will be hard to conclude that this is not her goal (splitting the party).
Here's the problem - if Obama goes down in defeat in the GE, with a deliberate HRC sabotage (or even perceived), HRC's next run is in 2012. People in politics tend to have long memories - and the axes and knives will come out to take out HRC in the early primaries. Remember, Obama's guys will still be in the DNC - it won't be hard to change the rules to favor one candidate over HRC. It's very possible in the back rooms, through rule changes and exerting pressure, to make this happen.
Like I said in another thread - we're all in the heat of the moment for this battle. Emotions are running high. You've seen my posts - I've been pretty even (or, at least tried to be - my horse has been Obama). We need to come together. Time will fade this battle in our minds, and we'll start putting Mr. McCain under the microscope. What I think you'll find there will erase doubt in your mind to at least "vote for the party", your words from another thread, if not vote for Obama directly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
Look, if Obama happens to win the Presidency and we haven't made strides in getting out of Iraq, we will lose more than the senate. We got the majority not too long ago and what have we done? Wasn't it a referendum election? Don't put blame on one person when I can name a hosts of guilty people in office now .
I am telling you, it isn't going to matter when Hillary gets out of the race, I don't see Obama winning against McCain. That isn't a knock on Obama but a general is way different than a primary. You think he has it tough now? Just wait.
If you're asking me about my disappointment about the House and Senate not doing anything for two years - you're preaching to the choir, Reverend. Amen.
To that end - you're right. If we control the Congress, and the White House, we have no excuse for not following through. We should have fought the President harder on some item - make him veto more bills, tie up everything he wanted in the sub-committees up on the hill until the entire damn thing ground to a halt and he was forced to come to the table to compromise. Filed lawsuits. You name it, we should have waged a more effective political war - but we didn't.
And if we are not effective once we have the Hill and 1600 Penn Ave., then I don't know what to do. Hell, maybe I'll go form a US Rhino Party. If so, you and I can be the party elders. And we'll sell the DNC at an antique auction in Cali.
I'm not worried about Obama's toughness. I'm worried about fracturing the base - driving a wedge between the supporters of Obama and HRC. Regardless of how tough a person is, or how wise, it is impossible to win a General Election without the full and unwavering support of the base. It's not possible. Therefore, I would say that HRC can't win this for Obama - but she can lose it for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LacardJoe67
The party leadership (Obama supporters) are the only ones whispering...if what you say is true.
I think that the Party Leadership has, for the most part, tried to stay out of this. This will change in the next few days (there is one exception - but that's so horrible and destructive that I don't even dare think about it). The true question is - how will HRC proceed?
Shamefully, the Clintons really did learn at Karl Rove's knee. They'll stop at nothing, and will destroy themselves and the party -- and then the nation -- in the process.
AZZ, I think that Karl Rove learned from the Clintons. They, the Clintons, waged this type of political warfare on the Pubs for 8 years - very effectively, I may add. And we all cheered them on. Now that it's being inflicted on the party and fellow Dems, however, it's starting to cause problems.
There you and I have a fundamental disagreement - in order to start the party healing, HRC has to suspend her run. It's that simple. Anything else, I'm afraid, will simply alienate some of her constituency further. We don't need that right now.
Unless that is the point. There have been, in some circles, some speculation that HRC has devised a strategy to split the party to make an Obama election impossible. I have not given that speculation any gravity. However, if HRC decides to take this all the way to Denver (which she could do, SD's and Party Elders be damned), in the face of certain defeat, it will be hard to conclude that this is not her goal (splitting the party).
Here's the problem - if Obama goes down in defeat in the GE, with a deliberate HRC sabotage (or even perceived), HRC's next run is in 2012. People in politics tend to have long memories - and the axes and knives will come out to take out HRC in the early primaries. Remember, Obama's guys will still be in the DNC - it won't be hard to change the rules to favor one candidate over HRC. It's very possible in the back rooms, through rule changes and exerting pressure, to make this happen.
That's exactly the point I made in a different thread. It's what Teddy Kennedy did in 1980 and it ended any chance he might have had for the future. Hillary is different only in that she is not nearly as powerful as Teddy was.
If Hillary screws the pooch for the D's, she's done in any national office.
__________________
Here's to the Army and Navy and the battles they have won; here's to America's colors, the colors that never run. May the wings of liberty never lose a feather. ....
There's a lot of animosity on this board - I did not want this post being construed as a personal attack. Tis better to be clear up front than to mop up the mess afterwards.
Perhaps - but it did not help their case with the committee one iota. In fact, I would bet you dollars to donuts that almost every member on that committee was tired and frustrated at the outbursts, heckling, and booing. I've been to meetings like that. I've sat on committees in those situations (non-political but public policy related). The members of the committee harden their stance and just move things along faster. You could see it by the actions of the chair at the end of the meeting. Having to be told by the Parliamentarian that you have to call for the "Against" vote? Please - that's standard, even if the vote is unamious (sp).
If the DNC sold tickets - dumb. I understand that they wanted the process to be open, but there were other ways to do that without allowing the process to be disrupted.
Like I said a couple of weeks ago - a circus.
There you and I have a fundamental disagreement - in order to start the party healing, HRC has to suspend her run. It's that simple. Anything else, I'm afraid, will simply alienate some of her constituency further. We don't need that right now.
Unless that is the point. There have been, in some circles, some speculation that HRC has devised a strategy to split the party to make an Obama election impossible. I have not given that speculation any gravity. However, if HRC decides to take this all the way to Denver (which she could do, SD's and Party Elders be damned), in the face of certain defeat, it will be hard to conclude that this is not her goal (splitting the party).
Here's the problem - if Obama goes down in defeat in the GE, with a deliberate HRC sabotage (or even perceived), HRC's next run is in 2012. People in politics tend to have long memories - and the axes and knives will come out to take out HRC in the early primaries. Remember, Obama's guys will still be in the DNC - it won't be hard to change the rules to favor one candidate over HRC. It's very possible in the back rooms, through rule changes and exerting pressure, to make this happen.
Like I said in another thread - we're all in the heat of the moment for this battle. Emotions are running high. You've seen my posts - I've been pretty even (or, at least tried to be - my horse has been Obama). We need to come together. Time will fade this battle in our minds, and we'll start putting Mr. McCain under the microscope. What I think you'll find there will erase doubt in your mind to at least "vote for the party", your words from another thread, if not vote for Obama directly.
If you're asking me about my disappointment about the House and Senate not doing anything for two years - you're preaching to the choir, Reverend. Amen.
To that end - you're right. If we control the Congress, and the White House, we have no excuse for not following through. We should have fought the President harder on some item - make him veto more bills, tie up everything he wanted in the sub-committees up on the hill until the entire damn thing ground to a halt and he was forced to come to the table to compromise. Filed lawsuits. You name it, we should have waged a more effective political war - but we didn't.
And if we are not effective once we have the Hill and 1600 Penn Ave., then I don't know what to do. Hell, maybe I'll go form a US Rhino Party. If so, you and I can be the party elders. And we'll sell the DNC at an antique auction in Cali.
I'm not worried about Obama's toughness. I'm worried about fracturing the base - driving a wedge between the supporters of Obama and HRC. Regardless of how tough a person is, or how wise, it is impossible to win a General Election without the full and unwavering support of the base. It's not possible. Therefore, I would say that HRC can't win this for Obama - but she can lose it for him.
I think that the Party Leadership has, for the most part, tried to stay out of this. This will change in the next few days (there is one exception - but that's so horrible and destructive that I don't even dare think about it). The true question is - how will HRC proceed?
Great post. I almost agree with everything but since my mind can't keep up with my fingers, I am calling it a night. Great conversation throughout the day and I have to say I am impressed by the way you convey your thoughts. keep er up!
good night!
__________________
If your sword's too short, add to its length by taking one step forward.
Great post. I almost agree with everything but since my mind can't keep up with my fingers, I am calling it a night. Great conversation throughout the day and I have to say I am impressed by the way you convey your thoughts. keep er up!
good night!
Drink coffee by the pot, with the occasional Red Bull and Mountain Dew thrown in - it helps. Cigs help too.
Thing is Joe, we need guys like you in the GE - you're articulate, passionate, don't quit, fight hard, fight fair when possible, and dirty where required (trust me - that's a compliment).
