I totally agree with this assessment. The only thing a continuation of the Hillary campaign will accomplish now is to make it more likely McCain will win the Presidency. For this reason and this reason alone if you care at all about what would happen to our country under a McCain presidency, you will abandon the Clinton Titanic now before you and the Democratic party go down with it. I really don't care anymore about their minor differences on policy issues either. Right now, with McCain having sewn up the nomination and out and about pretending to look presidential while making fund raising stops, we need to focus around the only candidate who will have the most elected delegates and contests won by the time the convention rolls around and that is Barack Obama. And in most polls he also leads Hillary and beats McCain by more points.
Now if you really don't care if McCain becomes the next President, stay with Hillary to the brutal bitter end.
RJ Crane, topplebush.com
Reactions to a Tough Decision
Crossposted at OpenLeft
Arianna Huffington and I were talking at the Take Back America conference, and she encouraged me to write a follow-up post about the decision I made a couple of weeks ago that I thought I would not end up making in this primary campaign: endorsing Barack Obama. I did so on March 5th, the day after the Ohio and Texas primaries.
It's not that I didn't like Obama. I've actually known him for awhile and liked him very much -- certainly I had been inspired by him like so many others. But I had been very much intending to stay neutral in this campaign for a couple of reasons.
The first was that for all my years in presidential politics (I've been directly involved in five different presidential campaigns since 1984, and have been involved in a variety of independent expenditure efforts in 2000 and 2004), I haven't been involved in the primaries since the 1988 cycle. I have always been a lot more focused on beating Republicans rather than on presidential primaries, and on building the broader progressive infrastructure. Because there don't tend to be huge issue or ideological distinctions between the leading candidates, as in this election, it has always seemed more important to me playing a broader building and uniting role in the party and progressive movement than getting into the intense flame wars that always seem to accompany these primary fights (God knows I've been exhausted by the flame war accompanying this one for quite a while).
The second reason was, as I wrote in the March 5th post and in several other posts over the last year, that I have a very high regard for and loyalty to Hillary Clinton. I was a senior staffer in Little Rock in the 1992 campaign, and a Special Assistant to the President in the first term of the Clinton administration, and in that role I had worked very closely with Hillary, especially on the health care fight. I have a great deal of affection and respect for her from those years, and feel a great deal of loyalty to her for all her kindness and friendships for me over the years. I had strongly disagreed with her on the war and on some other issues over the years, but that has not diminished my respect for her.
So I was determined to stay out of this fight. But the fight in Texas and Ohio changed all that for me. Not just because I was appalled at the Republican reinforcing fear thematic that Hillary used to win, but because there is no path for Hillary to the nomination at this point except an ugly, ugly path. Given the delegate math, she can only win this by a combination of fear-mongering attacks and behind the scenes deals with superdelegates. That would be terrible for our party, and for the entire progressive movement.
The reaction since my endorsement post has been really interesting. No surprise at all, I got shots across the bow by people connected to Hillary's campaign about my name being mud, etc. Hey, it's politics, I get that and expected it. But I have been surprised by the number of Hillary supporters who quietly said to me, "I've picked my candidate and I'm with her until the end, but I admire what you wrote, because there is no way to a win without it getting really ugly." And even the most ardent Hillary supporters -- the ones who say things like "well, yeah, but Obama's been negative, too" or "hey, politics is a contact sport" -- cannot spell out for me a path to the nomination for her, absent a big mistake by Obama, that isn't profoundly divisive.
Because of my personal ties to the Clintons, this was one of the toughest decisions I have ever made. But every day that goes by makes me more convinced that it was the right thing to do.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I don't have a huge problem that HRC voted for the war. Back in 2002, Bush and company had everyone scared to death with their lies about Saddam Hussein being a real danger. I'm willing to give her a pass for that, although Obama was smart enough to see we were being played.
No, the problem I have is with her dirty tactics and her Machiavellian determination to do anything to win, even if it means, lying, cheating, and throwing mud. I don't want someone like that in the White House, and I don't want her husband back there, either. He's almost as bad as HRC, in my book.
I am another rather ordinary former Clinton supporter. I voted for, supported, donated to, and defended Bill Clinton. Starting in January of 07 I strongly supported Hillary with my voice and checkbook. But the Cinton campaign's blatant, intentional, and manipulative use of racially-divisive tactics to gain voters has really turned me off. That and the generally nasty tone of her campaign. I find the spinning(lies and self-serving distortions) from Howard Wolfson, Mark Penn, Phil Singer and Lanny Davis absolutely disgusting. These are people who I had formerly admired. Now I consider them the Three Stooges of politics--wacking each other and the other guy over the head and poking him in the eyes. Obviously, about a month ago, I switched to Obama.
That said, I will certainly vote for Hillary if she is the nominee, even if I have to hold my nose. Both Hillary supporters and Obama supporters who threaten not to vote or voting for McCain or voting for Nader if the other is the nominee are not really Democrats. Think about why you are a Democrat--far and away the party of compassion in this wealthiest nation that has ever existed--and the minimal differences on policy of Hillary and Obama. Don't let your devotion to the person blind you to the basic fact that any Democrat is more likely to be better than any Republican. And yes, I admire John McCain as a man and as a patriot--but his Republican values go against most of the things I believe in.
As a 68 year old lifelong Democratic voter, I never thought I would agree with a lifelong Republican like Pat Buchanan.
I stayed faithful to the Party when all of my friends were becoming Reagan Democrats. I supported Bill Clinton when he was elected by the majority of the public who wanted a moderate view of America.
George W. Bush has demonstrated that the majority of Americans do not want a far right agenda and they do not want a far left agenda.
Senator Hillary Clinton is the only person who can defeat Senator McCain in the general election and must become the Democratic nominee.
http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=969
"George W. Bush has demonstrated that the majority of Americans do not want a far right agenda and they do not want a far left agenda.?"
and... you are for effective government?
68yo, eh...?
now would be a good time to retire . . . ya know, take a vacation. don't worry about the shop -- we've got it covered. ;o
Yes, I can onoy imagine the hardship involved in making your decision. Bravo for doing a good thing.
As a former Clinton supporter I agree that this is diffcult but I have really lost respect for Bill. He is so desperate to win the nomination for Hillary he has shown his true self and I don,t like what I see. I defended him through all the crap that went on during his adminstration. If I were running Hillary campaign I would put Bill under a rock.
Go Obama
soooooo........ um . . . hillary's true self has flown a little under your radar?
I think it took courage to cross over. I only hope others e-think why they're still with candiate Clinton who can't win but keeps endorsing McCain to the detriment of the party and country.
Why was it a tough decision? Do you think anyone gives a shit?
Didn't you see the disclaimer at the beginning of the article: "This article is only for those who give a shit."
BTW, if you had read the article before commenting, you would know the answer you seek.
"Arianna Huffington and I were talking at the Take Back America conference, and she encouraged me to write a follow-up post about the decision ....."
"Because of my personal ties to the Clintons, this was one of the toughest decisions I have ever made."
*chuckle*
Apparently, being an aide way back gave him an inflated idea that he was relevant.
Oh wowie, FAILED NADER-ITES of the hit & run "candidate" Ralph Nader are now "fortune tellers" to the Democrats? Hahahaha. Stupid. Soooooo stupid.
Thanks for being objective on this. I try not to be a zealot about anything. I just want fairness. I understand Hillary being there as what Pat Buchanan describes as "insurance", and I don't mind that, but the constant coded messages of her being more "electable" is making me really mad. IF she would stop planting the seeds of doubt in the minds of Whites who may be sitting on the fence about voting for Obama, I would be more open to her getting the nomination, through super delegates, but as it is now, I can NOT in good conscience vote for her.
she's a neo-con, leiberman-esque mole. she was an original character in the script. that is why all the usual fascist suspects (wall street, telecom, big pharma, MIC, broadcasters, trade etc, etc, etc) have broken campaign donation records contributing to her -- you se, they like to give us the illusion that we have a choice -- but . . . there was a glitch that had not been anticipated.
in fact, a glitch that wasn't even supposed to be possible: barack obama.
sen. obama ran a proficient campaign and people had been far more alert than the "masters" had imagined. they hadn't counted on the "new" voters. the 18-25 block, the first time voters or the educated and well informed.
but there was more surprise to come: mike huckabee and mitt romney.
after having pulled off such tremendous steals in 2000 and 2004 and the public being so complacent and submissive they had become too confident and cocky. --before they had realized what was really happening it was too late. barack obama was too far ahead. they had to rewrite the ending:
the "masters" were forced into crisis mode. instead of guiliani and clinton they had to give the boost to mccain and go with mccain and clinton. because there would be no way the war hero and 2000 GOP frontrunner (until the rovian composed south carolina racial swift-boating, that is) wouldn't be able to generate more support than a black jr senator from IL, right?
wrong! --- and by the time that little dose of reality was digested it was too late. the glitch had morphed into the quintessential phenomenon.
this time the rewrite required specific orders: take obama out regardless the cost to the party or democracy. mccain will serve one term, sen clinton and your turn will be moved back to 2012.
of course, they're lying to her . . . and her lust for power, sense of entitlement, narcissism and hubris have her and bill locked in a perpetual state of blindness.
These comments seem all about YOU. The Democrats have been the least inspired group of politicians for a long dismal 48 years. Now someone comes along to inspire the rest of you, like a mother trying to waken her teenage son after a night of druggin' and get him off to school. The teenager - like the Democrats - might get to school but it doesn't mean the kid will get anything done.
Kudos to you for doing the right thing, and thank you for sharing your reflections that led to the decision.
I can't attribute it to anything you said specifically, but I suddenly realized that the very thing that led you to endorse her opponent may be motivating Hillary Clinton to stay in this race. She's made "survivor," "fighter," and "tough" the hallmarks of her brand, and prides herself at having triumphed over her enemies--almost regardless of the actual outcome, but that's another matter. I'm wondering whether the increasing challenge and improbability of winning the nomination are serving to inspire rather than deter her. I wonder whether her Bush-like insistence on staying the course will lead her to frame the "ugliness" of the fight as an immaterial, unimportant aspect of it, rather than something that recommends against fighting entirely. That she seems blind to the welfare of anything non-Clinton seems pretty well established at this point, and the thing we don't know is how far is she willing to go to serve her own interests at the expense of the people, the party, and the country.
I think Senator Clinton now has as good a chance as Senator Obama to win the election by popular votes, even though Senator Obama has the delegate lead. This is especially plausible after the slanderous Fox News soundbite slideshow that was used against Senator Obama to appeal to the fear and baser instincts of the electorate, and this will likely have an impact on the upcoming races. Hopefully by April, this will have been flushed out, as more and more people have the opportunity to read or view the entirety of Pastor Wright's sermons as opposed to that part of his sermons that were taken out of context for the sole purpose of manipulating the election. However, Senator Clinton herself is now using this as well to persuade Super Delegates to support her, even though she is familiar with Pastor Wright and knows that the things said about him are untrue. I admire Mike for his insight, and I too think that he made the right decision, both for the Party and for the country. But unfortunately, many of the electorate are still resistant to the truth about Senator Obama and will rely on Fox News to provide them with the "insight" that they themselves lack.
Obama has a huge delegate lead, 29 states for Obama to 14 for Clinton, #0 million in the bank for Obama, 3 for Clinton, 60 + supers have jumped to Obama since Feb 5, 2 for Clinton.....It's over.
Pardon me. How can Wright's condemnation by people be untrue. We hear him. We see him. He did it.
*hooting*
There are a lot of people who attend predominantly AA churches where the sermans are not always "Presbyterian-like," for sure; and still, this church is shocking to those members!
If I thought for a heartbeat that everyone who is AA goes weekly to get their dose of how America is terrible, I'd be frightened to death.
Thankfully, I know that's BS. That type of talk is simply unacceptable from the pulpit. Want to be an activist? Then for crying out loud, go do it outside of your religious group. Don't use the bully pulpit in such a gross fashion.
I loathe people who manipulate on a spiritual level. It's abusive.
And I do hold Obama accountable. He's not a clear thinker if he couldn't see that this is wrong-headed, as he likes to say.
The one thing good is that I now get him about Ferarro. I was amazed that anyone could be that mixed up. After seeing him this last month? I get it completely.
You guys are backing someone who absolutely is not a clear thinker. Yeah, I know. Amazing for me to say. He got kudos for his speech.
But there was something off about that speech to me, and I figured it out when he popped out his "typical white woman" remark. I knew something was not ringing true to me.
He's mixed up.
You saw reverend Wright, You heard reverend Wright. But you did not listen to reverend Wright, otherwise you would have understood that his sermon was not anti-white but instead anti-power. You would have understood that his read of America's sins is accurate and that many state sponsored acts of violence are worthy of denouncing. As a spiritual leader Martin Luther King Jr. was also a political activist. He is now one of our greatest American heroes. Politics and preaching can share a pulpit because they both teach us how to better live with our friends and our enemies. Why do you think the Romans killed Jesus. It certainly wasn't because they didn't like his religion. It was because he was a threat to their political power. He empowered the people and so he was a revolutionary, a rabble rouser, a terrorist, if you will. This is why Reverend Wright scares you. He is speaking truth to power and he is challenging your comfy misperceptions and if you acknowledge that what he says is true, then you have to reevaluate your own biases and your FOX news force fed patriotism.
You know you are a Republican, so stop trying to pretend you are a Democrat.
Read the entire Sermons Fox News and all your Neocons do not want the American People to see. I sure Hope Pastor Wright sue every last one for Defamation of Character, Malice, Slander for distorting and deception of his Sermons.
Take a look for yourself and stop being a DITTO HEAD for God' Sake.
Tell the Whole Story FOX! Barack Obama's pastor Wright
http://uk.youtube.com/user/TRINITYCHGO
P1-What FOX doesn't want you to know about Jeremiah Wright
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdfbWSJINhg
P2-What FOX doesn't want you to know about Jeremiah Wright
09:29 From: ronptech
P3-What FOX doesn't want you to know about Jeremiah Wright
06:34 From: ronptech
P4-What FOX doesn't want you to know about Jeremiah Wright
09:12 From: ronptech
I don't know you from 'adam' but I think you did the right thing by endorsing Obama. As someone who is not an insider, the contrast between the two candidates is profound .... not on most policy issues, of course, but on persona. Like Hillary, he's really smart. Unlike Hillary, he's calm. Unlike Hillary, he has ideas about how the US should manage itself that seem fresh, untainted, and sincere. He's very likeable. In fact, so likable that people who've never been interested are active, vocal and passionate. This brings in the moderate Republicans. And I know lots of them. As trite as it's become, the notion of real change seems like a possibility. And the idea that he can re-energize the Democrats and the nation has already happened. Lastly, I believe he will have a bi-partisan approach to problem solving and he will build the first coalition government since FDR. Lastly, our problems are so big that our President has to reflect big change, too. We need to start over. Unfortunately, the Clintons are the past.
Mike,
I admire your courage. To come out and post about your decision and why on Huffington post in the toxic atmosphere here, does take courage.
But, alot is bitterness at the growing realization that Hillary is not going to win. And venting may be good for her supporters to be able to accept it amd move past it.
I personally would feel the same way if it was Obama who was in the same position that HRC is now.
I listen to Air America often and recently one their hosts said that our mission after this election should be to drum all of the moderate and centrist democrats out of the party.
I read a lot of posts here that suggest the same mindset. I don"t think posters here are doing the Democratic Party any favors by making the point that moderates and centrists aren"t welcome. I understand that we want to move away from a government driven by lobbyists and big moneyed interests, but if we intend to win we need the party to be whole and even Barack has said he'd like to pick up some moderate republicans.
I"d also like to point out that there is almost no difference in the voting records or rhetoric of Barack, Hillary and many other democrats in the house and senate. To pretend that he is somehow a paradigm shift is to ignore his own campaign rhetoric and stated goals. A great politician he is. A change in direction he has promised. But a radical and abrupt change was never part of the deal.
Pmag88
Which Air America host said that?
Absolutely, that's the message. I have squawked about that from Day 1! I'm not a "lunch-bucket" Dem. I'm actually a latte gal. *haha
However, I throw my hat in with the lunch-bucket crowd. I'm moderate. I'm centrist. I'm not mad over her Iraq vote. I'm not at all persuaded by Republican demonization tactics. I look and see a bit of fluffing up on the resume, but I also hear her depth of understanding when she speaks on the real issues. I don't care how she got that. I just know. She got it.
I'm practical. I don't think the biggest issue is race. I think the biggest issue is the economy.
And yes, right now, the party direction is way off for me. I hear the "drive them out" message and nobody is even talking about the registered Dems as if we matter anymore. We're just all "racists" now.
No way am I hanging around for THAT crap.
So you're right, Ping. I think you're going to end up with a very radical ly different Dem party who will struggle for 20 years to establish an identity that actually works.
Oh? Do you mean like the Democratic party that worked so well in the last twenty years?
Why has no-one pursued the New York Primary... and the anomalies there... where whole districts registered "No Votes for Obama"... and toward which Mayor Bloomberg remarked ..."a clear sign of voter fraud."
This is Hill's home state...
I don't ever see it referenced... not even by the people who post on these exchanges about Barack vs. Hillary. What's that about?
I can't do this... I don't live in New York... and have not the ability to go... nor the journalistic credential.
Is this a 'fear factor'? Is it difficult to entertain the possibility that the Rovian Playbook is the basic plan for the "Post Iowa Surprise" that is Obama?
Thoes reports were based on vote estimates not the offical tally.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/16/nyregion/16vote.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
"City election officials said they were convinced that there was nothing sinister to account for the inaccurate initial counts, and The Times"s review found a handful of election districts in the city where Mrs. Clinton received zero votes in the initial results.
"It looked like a lot of the numbers were wrong, probably the result of human error," said Marcus Cederqvist, who was named executive director of the Board of Elections last month. He said such discrepancies between the unofficial and final count rarely affected the raw vote outcome because "they"re not usually that big.""
Thanks for the update!!! Really!!! Thank you!
My favorite movie is Frank Capra's "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington", because of the scene where James Stewart's Smith is confronted with the letters and telegrams (those were the days...) urging him to end his filibuster and he refuses because he knows that he is fighting the good fight.
Hillary still has chances and options. In fact, her prospects for the remaining contests look bright since she polls ahead in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, West-Virginia, Indiana, Puerto Rico and even in North Carolina. I think that these states should have their say as well as all the other states. I think the race is not finished before one candidate crosses the finishing line. If she were 500 delegates behind, I would say that she should step down. Since the margin in pledged delegates is just between 150 and 170 votes, with 566 still undetermined, I say: "GO, girl, GO the distance, WIN this thing"
Ahhh, I just love an underdog... :-)
I love that movie too. Unfortunately, you have gotten the casting all wrong. Obama is Mr. Smith. He has the idealistic youth of America and the optimistic message. I'd place Hillary in the Claude Rains role. The cynical Washington insider who sold his soul.
You mean the "Inevitable one" is the underdog?
The underdog with an army of shills imbeded in the media working for her and with hands in the wealthiest and most powerful pockets, the polls twisted in her favor and former president of the US working like a dog at her call and she is the underdog? :-)
Democratic majority wants Obama and Hillary wants Hillary.
However, since the democrats do not offer any winner-take-all states, she STILL cannot win in pledged delegates. By contrast, neither can Obama, but he will still have the majority of votes, and the majority of delegates, even if he LOSES every additional state by the margins one could reasonably expect. THAT'S why I think that Hillary should bow out for the good of the party....
"..because there is no path for Hillary to the nomination at this point except an ugly, ugly path."
Ugly as in winning the majority of the remaining contests? Ugly as in asking to have the 2.5 million voters from Florida and Michigan included in a reasonable way? Ugly as in closing the gap to Obama and erasing his lead that he won in the RED states? You call it ugly, I call it democracy, I call it spirited fighting.
Why is it that the Obama people are all so eager to urge Clinton to fold her hand. Her cards are not great, but there is definitely potential in her hand: She will win Pennsylvania and is ahead in North Carolina, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky and Puerto Rico. If she wins 350 out of the remaining 566 pledged delegates, the distance between t
Posted March 21, 2008 | 01:43 PM (EST)