David Brooks says it best in today's New York Times: Hillary's "Audacity of Hopelessness."
Does anyone even remember how exciting and fun American politics seemed just a short time ago? The Republicans were in a nose dive facing a field of weak candidates none of them liked, while the Democrats had three strong candidates, any one of which many Democrats would have been happy with. An embarrassment of riches. A lot of us were having a hard time making up our minds. Could we somehow get all three on the ticket? Or could we maybe skip the whole choosing bit and get on the good stuff of beating whatever joker the Republicans managed to limp into the election with. Hard to even remember, isn't it? Current polls show about a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters saying they will refuse to vote for the other in a general election. Meanwhile, all the sniping has dropped Obama from a double-digit lead over McCain among independents into a tailspin.
Brooks calculates Clinton's chances of winning the nomination at 5%. Asking whether it is worth it to continue the dogfight the Democratic primary has become for a mere 5% chance of victory, he calls on Clinton to withdraw. I have no idea how he arrived at this number of 5%, but however he got there it is silly, because it is easy to explain the situation Clinton is currently in without resorting to conjecture. The situation is quite simple. With Florida and Michigan re-votes off the table, she cannot possibly beat Obama in delegates or in popular votes. Her only hope is for a mass defection of superdelegates from Obama. But with the delegate and vote contests essentially over, the trend in super delegates is toward Obama. The only thing that could save her at this point is a major political catastrophe for Obama. Short of that, Clinton is done.
If she stays in the race in this point, one must conclude that the inner circles of the Clinton campaign have to be in hyper drive trying to cook up just such a scandal, for they surely know the electoral math better than I do.
Can she do this? Can she drum up a scandal so big that superdelegates will desert Obama in numbers sufficient to give her the nomination? Her best bet by far would in fact be not to drum up a new scandal but to continually light the fire under the existing one. And indeed, today there she was in Greensburg, PA, announcing that Jeremiah Wright "would not have been my pastor." She went on to compare Wright's sermons with Don Imus's characterization of the Rutgers women's basketball team as "nappy headed ho's." Both, she said, constituted "hate speech."
Clinton hereby serves notice that she will be throwing kerosene on the fire burning in the Democratic house, in hopes that the wing in which her rivals reside will suffer more damage than hers. This is audacious, "the audacity of hopelessness," of a candidate who simply does not know how to lose.
Losing is never fun. It hurts even more when the loser has the sense of entitlement that Clinton clearly has. She still believes it is "her turn." She put up with Monica Lewinsky and all of Bill's other affairs, she moved to New York, she worked in the Senate, she cut all the necessary deals, she did everything her handlers insisted she do. If she were in, say, China, where leadership is chosen bureaucratically, it would indeed be her turn.
But the US is a democracy, and no matter how carefully you dot the i's and cross the t's, ultimately you have to win the most votes, and by this basic democratic standard Clinton has lost. She is not accustomed to losing. The Clinton's won in Arkansas. They won the White House twice. She won her senate seat twice. But now she has lost, and her only hope is to create a scandal so all-encompassing that the vote she lost doesn't matter.
The whole idea of the superdelegates was to have a block of votes looking out for the interests of the party. It is time for them to step in and put an end to this.
This is an election for President of the United States. Nobody called anyone "whitey." Jeremiah Wright didn't even do that. And Jeremiah Wright is not running for President, so you don't have to vote for him.
What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
WHY, with our diminishing reputation in the global community, would you NOT want Senator Obama to be President? There seems to be some kind of anti-intellectual vibe out there which is scary. And Hillary is these people's choice? She's a pretty smart lady, folks. Smart enough to play as dirty as Karl Rove without Rove's help. I once respected her and would have voted for her. Not now...and not ever again. She has shown her true colors and those who can still support her are just as "starry eyed" as they call Obama supporters.
But Obama supporters are growing in number - not diminishing. Thank you, Hillary, for showing us the lengths and depths to which you'll go. You are not asking the American people what you can do for them - you are telling them what they had better do for you! And they had better listen to you or ELSE! What is the else? If you throw the electon to McCain, then you can win in 2012?
Ah yes, Clintonian logic. I would bet in his heart of hearts, Bill is an Obama supporter. Remember 1992?
It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.
That's the difference between Hillary and Obama. Hillary represents people who know what it is like to work and Obama represents intellectual snobs.
Hillary is red, white, and blue. Obama can be painted as green (for inexperience), and yellow (for being whimpy and whining), and black
for making us deal with race when we want jobs.
So move on and do the right thing and work - work to let people vote. It is what democrats want. Or should want even if you are an Obama supporter. You should have democratic values and make it easier for people to vote. Demonstrate your patriotism.
And why would I care what his DNA is? Why bring it up? I don't really care to know. Not really my business and I'm embarrassed for him and you that you keep having to talk about his DNA.
I just think Hillary is the best person for the job. I care about my job of voting and I studied it. Hillary represents the best chance I have to get health care I can afford and jobs for the economy and a better image in the world.
Just my opinion butchie65
http://thebeerdoctor.newscloud.com/
After all, we just don't want the golden boy to have to possibly be vetted anymore or allow him to screw up again.
You guys are something else.
Yesterday, I also saw a quote comparing Hillary Clinton to Tonya Harding. That's right on the money, too.
"Now, I could stand up here and say, 'Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified. The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing, and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect.'"
Then there's that "Magic Wand"...
"why would any Democrat with a scintilla of integrity listen to a word that David Brooks speaks or writes?"
My very first thought exactly! It may be that Bob is a great musician, and a heckuva Professor of Technocultural Studies and Music, but I don't see anywhere in his credentials the training or education that gives him more standing here than any one of the posters that may write in. I've noticed that about bloggers on HuffPo before, and it's starting to bother me, especially when they take this line of reasoning and try to advance it as something of substance, or even as their own.
It also says that Bob's writings have been published, gosh, just about everywhere, but all that proves is that either Bob likes to write, Bob has a big mouth, or Bob is using his pulpit from the music Biz like Bono, or Sting, or Pearl Jam. but that still doesn't give him any more credibility or authority than many folks here.
He wants Clinton to give up. So do I. But this article is really a just an opinion piece, not journalism,wrapped up in whatever poisonous respectability David Brooks confers on him. Was it really necessary?
She has never worked for the American people and clearly won't consider the Democratic Party in her machinations.
Anybody hoping for a quick settlement is deluding themselves.
If she can't win, she will go down helping McCain.
When she is finally forced out, Obama will be stuck with a huge decision.
How can he welcome her endorsement without opening his campaign to internal sabotage from both Hillary and Bill? Neither can be trusted, but since unity is Obama's campaign theme and the only hope for a Dem win in November, he has no choice.
Like it or not, we are stuck with the Clintons until then, and it seems many many Americans have swallowed the Clinton spin to the extent they can and may be manipulated further. Progressives need to come to terms with the reality that Hillary's DLC wing can still influence beyond the primaries.
With the media unwilling, it's doubtful that Hillary's health mandate a la Romney will be exposed as a GOP-friendly plan designed to cement the role of the profiteers.
Her support for NAFTA and Bush's war is likewise getting a pass.
Despite ample proof, her supporters insist she is the more liberal/progressive choice, and this ignorance is the Clinton's last bargaining chip.
Perhaps a deal where we agree not to run a real Democrat against her in NY should be considered?