Insightful article. I have wondered the same thing...why, after struggling so hard to reach the point where race and gender could really be 'put behind us', so many people, including Hill-Bill, seem to be doing all they can to keep those 'old fires' burning.
Power is corrupting, and, so it seems, is the quest for it.
Oddly, as a life-long Republican (albeit 'moderate' or 'Rockefeller Republican'), this really disturbs me because I am definitely an Obama supporter. I am sure there are a lot of us 'seasoned' political types who, quite frankly, really believe it is time to turn the office over to 'the next generation'.
I just don't see how leaders so thoroughly steeped in the political battles and paradigms of the 60s, Vietnam, Cold War, Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and so forth can take us forward any further. While not denigrating any of their accomplishments or strengths, it is time for youth, vigor, and a willingness to see and try new approaches to take the lead.
Imagine
A lot has been written and said since the West Virginia primary about what recent results indicate in regard to Barack Obama's chances in a general election. Some of it's been said by pundits, in print and on television, and some of it's been said by mere citizens. A lot of it's been said by Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff. "He can't win," the argument seems to go. There are a lot of "hard working" people who'll never vote for a black man, and that's why we're staying in the race.
But I've got questions for Senator Clinton, her campaign staff, and her supporters. Do you think he can't win on his own, once his flaws have been picked apart by both Republicans and members of his own party? Or, do you think he couldn't win, even with your quick endorsement and unambivalent support?
For instance, what if the results of the most recent primaries had been followed by a statement from Hillary Clinton saying that she'd seen the exit polls, and that anyone who said they'd never vote for an African American candidate ought to be ashamed of themselves? It wouldn't be a revolutionary statement for Hilary Clinton to make. After all, doesn't she condemn the thinking that would lead a voter to make such a statement? And, if she does, then why would she choose, as she did, to try to expose and exploit the stated bigotry for her own gain, as opposed to condemning it? It's puzzled me. Down by an insurmountable margin, the opportunity was there to state that the reason given by many voters for opposing Obama were reprehensible. Yet she didn't do that. Talk about a missed opportunity to exit on high ground.
I assume there are those who'll say it's not her job to support another candidate while a primary race is still being run. But there is no mathematical way for her to win the primary race. There is only the hope -- and the possibility -- of exposing and exploiting Barack Obama's shortcomings, and the concurrent bigotry of much of the voting public, to the point where he is transformed from a viable, though flawed, candidate, into an unviable one. Which leads me back to another version of my original question: If sincere efforts by Senator Clinton and her supporters could lead to either Senator Obama's victory, or his defeat, why wouldn't they exercise their substantial influence for the former?
I took a certain amount of heat for my last entry here at Huffington Post, as have several others who've been critical of Senator Clinton's continued candidacy. "Sigh," read one response to my post. "You missed a spot on that dead horse, Mr. Handler." The next was more to the point. "What a jerk," it said.
The general thrust of these opinions was that being openly critical of Clinton's candidacy invited retribution in autumn. "Nothing is more dangerous than a cornered animal," stated one such concerned citizen. "But if you allow an escape route, most wild animals will take it."
If I can use the same analogy without agreeing she's a wild or a cornered animal, I'm saying there was a gallant escape route which she chose not to take.
Again, another respondent was more succinct: "You're going to eat your words in the fall when 25% of Hillary's supporters shut down your candidate."
It's that last statement that scares the hell out of me. There is anger about Hillary Clinton's apparent defeat that's being directed at a candidate whose positions are nearly identical to hers. There's talk of a movement to ensure his defeat to someone whose positions are diametrically opposed to hers. There are a substantial number of people who even say they'll go out and vote for the Republican candidate, John McCain -- a man, and a party, who are devoted to continuing to destroy much of what Senator Clinton has worked for her whole life. Why? Has Barack Obama abused her during the campaign? Or, is his somewhat extraordinary popularity at such a young age so much of an insult that they'd throw all principles away just to see him, and his supporters, thwarted?
I've spent some time imagining how transformative it would have been if a statement from Senator Clinton had emerged immediately following the West Virginia primary, or any time since. "I'm pleased to have the support of so many Americans who believe I would better represent them as President of the United States. However, the reasons given by many of those supporters troubles me. We are, and should be, long past the time when a man's skin color, or a woman's gender, should have any impact on whether or not he or she receives your vote. I'd like to be the first woman to serve as president of the United States. Senator Obama would like to be the first American of African decent to hold the office. Each one of us is qualified to serve. If I'm chosen as the candidate of my party, I'll hope for, and expect, Senator Obama's unwavering support. And if he is the party's eventually nominee, he'll certainly have mine -- just as he should have the unwavering support of anyone who has supported me."
Imagine that.
My new book is in stores now! It's Only Temporary: The Good News and the Bad News of Being Alive. Find out more about it at evanhandler.com.
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
We all have our flaws and sometimes even though we dont cover it up we manage to slip it by and proceed without bringing attentio to it. But when you pick at as you do an infested sore until it flares up then youuse it to prove your point is just despicable to me. She fed on those feelings reinforce them and then people wonder why Obama didnt bother going there. What makes this even sadder she did it at the point when it was over the math was impossible to overcome and now there is no telling if we will be able to reunite the party. This is why I do NOT want her on the ticket with Obama at all. She goes against everything he stands their policy may be similar but their poltics is VASTLY different. Its ironic that even though Kentucky people voted for her overhwelmingly 54% think she attacks Obama unfairly. But then again most of them think the gas tax idea is good policy but Oregon was the complete opposite even though in terms of where it stands economically it is similar to Kentucky. I do believe that if Obama had made a push in that state he would have done a lot better.
Carol
If there is one thing that this race has exposed it is who is the nobler of the two candidates. Barack Obama is not perfect, but Hillary Clinton is reprehensible. She has a moral responsibility to come out and make a statement to these people who voted WHITE. These people didn't all vote for her, they voted against Obama based on race. How can she accept such a hollow victory and then go around making an issue of how she exclusively attracts white working class voters??? What kind of person does this? Is this the kind of President we want?
It is no wonder that Barack Obama attracts the more educated white vote, because it is this voter that is able to see through this sham!
Bill and Hillary have prided themselves on being champions when it comes to AA issues. Well they have just thrown that all away in this race.
When Hillary presents her "popular vote" theory to the DNC rules committee, they should confront her with this issue and insist that she make a public statement renouncing all racist votes. Hillary Clinton has proven over and over again in this race that she does not deserve to be the nominee of the party.
Oxymoronic quote of the day: 'If sincere efforts by Senator Clinton...'
Mrs. Clinton and her husband have shown us time and time again their sincerity throughout this campaign. It began with 'he's unelectable' (code for 'he's black') and continued on and on through West Virginia - racist whites don't like him.
I'm fairly certain the reason why she's been muzzled these past few days are threats from superdelegates that they will walk if she engages in more disengenious behavior. Let her and Bubba be so they can go live in Chappaqua. We'll do the rest.
Part 2
Just yesterday while I was in the grocery store, my cousin picked up a paper while we were waiting in line. (This cousin knows I'm gay) but continued to say, "No offense cuz, but I'm glad Obama stopped talking about that faggots rights shit 'cause I'm not for that shit" My jaw hit the floor. This is the top reason I don't support Obama. He will lose a huge portion of his black support if he pursues the gay agenda. I have seen it in my black family and friends. Homophobia runs so deep. He WILL abandon the gay agenda before he loses his core support. I know it. McCain or Obama can't and won't do much for the gay agenda, So, I appreciate roe vs wade, I do. but I have to vote in my interests, and that's why I chose Clinton. Then his arrogance and petty supporters pushed me over. So, I won't vote for McCain, but Obama isn't my choice either, so for the first time in my life, I'm thinking of staying home in november.
Well if you think gay rights are going to be even remotely served by inadvertently helping McCain to win by staying home, you are in for a shock. By the time he is through with the Superme Court being gay will be a crime and require deprogramming in special camps. Good luck with that.
None of us would look anywhere near as stable and strong as either of the Democratic candidates if we lived for 15+ months under some of the most intense media scrutiny ever.
Imagine if the way you laughed during one interview, or the fact that you ordered a glass of Juice for breakfast became headline news around the world used to smear you as a hag or an effeminate elitist.
Picking apart what they should have said at any given moment, or direction that they should have taken is legitimate. However, try and also take into consideration that both of these people are probably terrified that anything they say or do is being weighed beforehand by a league of handlers and analysts. Not much of what we see is "them."
Just my .02
It's really hard, at this point, not to see Hillary's behavior during the race as merely that of a spoiled brat who expected the world and is now shrieking and throwing a fit because that's not what she got. So accusations of sexism are flung, her opponent is belittled for daring dto outperform her, and the crowds just follow behind, caught up in the myth.
Thank you for saying how I've been feeling for awhile now. The onus of the responsibility for healing the party is on Clinton herself...not on Obama. It's time for her to show us what kind of leader she truly is. Or the kind of leader she truly can never be.
It's on Hillary's supporters at this point, I fear. Not the ones who honestly believed in her, but the ones who so badly wanted to believe that they refused to accept that somebody else might be any good and instead fall back on sexism as the rationale for all their heartbreaks in seeing the historic candidacy of the first female would-be president dissolve into ash. People who don't want to see reason, don't care about reality, and will gladly play the victim card ad nauseum until the rest of us start to buy the Kool-aid the few honest misogynists are selling because it has more basis in reality than their little delusion.
Beyond the divisive rhetoric and encouraging breaking rules she agreed to in the campaign, Hillary is encouraging supporters to blame sexism and the media in an attempt at alienating women from our party. They are also busy blaming others for tactics they themselves executed.
I'm not seeing efforts at unity, nor admission of the reality that she lost fair and square.
With Limbaugh voters who will never vote for either Dem in the general putting her over the top in many of her recent "wins", and despite Bill Clinton going on Limbaugh's show before the Texas primary, her supporters refuse to acknowledge the impact.
I understand Hillary's motivations for power.
I wish I could understand how her supporters are tolerating these things.
Is a revenge vote worth:
-$4-$6 for a gallon gas?
-Another 4,000 US Soldier deaths?
-Going over a Trillion dollars in cost of this war?
-Roe Vs. Wade getting overturned?
-No democratic proposed health care plan, coverage mandate and no coverage mandate
-12-18 years of Republicans in power?
-an Economy in shambles
-Washington still dirty? (McSame wipes up the spilled Orange Soda, but when you walk on it, it's still sticky)
-Poverty rate still at the same level
People, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are 100% a better choice then John McCain. I think both equally bring talents and ability to the white house. Both have better foreign policies then the Republicans.
Beating a horse that has collapsed over and over again isn't going to make it get up and move.
its time to revitalize this county, bring in some fresh ideas and go into an 8 year period of recovery.
Again, Huzzah.
I would suggest that were the roles reversed, Obamanistas would be threatening to simply stay home in November.
Healing the country starts with healing a roughly evenly split party. There is only one way to do that. Only one.
Yeah, but the roles aren't reversed--in large part due to Clinton's arrogance and incompetence. Dems have to win in November and Obama is the man whom the voters have nominated.
Got electoral map?
http://www.electoral-vote.com
Hillary has been winning in the states where Dems can BEAT Republicans.
Obama has way too many red states. And no Florida or Ohio.
UNITY 08.
Huzzah.
So where's the VP slot offer, eh?
No fracking way the only job offer for Hillary should be that of Ambassador... To Bosnia!
You don't get the VP slot if you have to be dragged away kicking and screaming!
You don't get the Oval ring with only half a party.
UNITY 08
I find it all sad. . . .
Clinton supporters (supposed Democratic feminist even) willing to get John McCain into
the White House by not voting for the other Dem, staying home or
even actively campaigning against the Democrat. This will (if successful devastate the Supreme Court, dismiss any idea of health care and probably override Roe vs Wade.
Then there are the Obama supporters who would probably never vote
for McCain, but would stay home. . . .
By the time all of us have stopped our navel gazing and hurt feelings
more humans will be dead in Iraq, gas will be $7 a gallon, schools will
be barely holding on, the sick and poor will be told to bite it and more industry
will walk out of the country . . . .
Americans. . . . .
Our own worst enemy. . . .
Why should Hillary care. History only remembers the winner or transformer. If she does not get the Dem nomination, her historic move will be to run 3rd party. This will keep her in the history books. To give into Obama is meaningless for her legacy.
EVAN:
You expect too much from the Clinton's. They are political opportunist who will do and say anything to to satiate their political avarice.
Obama can win without or without Hillary Clinton. The question is moot.
Simon, are you sure about that? She's got nearly 50 per cent of the Democratic vote. That's a lot of people to dismiss so easily.
Much of that vote is early before her claws decided to stay out 24/7. a lot of early voters no longer like her and tons have joined the Obama group - many regret voting for her - my God, especially in California....they are willing to have a revote - just so she doesn't think she can use those early votes. No way she actually has 50% -- not in reality, not anymore. That is why the Nomination cannot be manipulated for her, too many people who KNOW - realize that a lot of what she had, she no longer has. She is making her case with rabble rousers who have no concept of what is really going on. All her big money LEFT the building long ago - she has been in free-fall since February - Obama has it in the bag. Hillary is being "handled" until it is okay to cut her loose. If Puerto Rico is it, then the lights go out - and it is elementary if she chooses to stand there in the dark. The Nominee has work to do, a nation to rebuild and one more dirty clan to get out of office. He has already prevailed over the dirty Clintons.
in Iowa (for instance) Hillary came in 3rd, behind edwards and Obama. Does that mean that if hillary were the candidate that less than 1/3 of dems would vote for hillary? I am from Pa (rememeber bitter , guns, churches) and I guarantee that ther is no way that a republican wins this state...absolutely no way, we could be running kucinich.
ridiculous, the republican party is damaged goods, at thsi point an edsel, with a president with approval ratings of 28% , losing congressional seats that have gone republican for decades. Hillary had EVERY political machine, name recognition, and goodwill(from bill's presidency) as tools to use and still lost. Dems and independants, even republicans will vote agaisnt a continuation of the ruination of our country by those currently in power.
There is a large percentage of that vote who have enough common sense to vote for the nominee no matter who it is. Why assume that ALL Hillary supporters would not vote for Obama.
Her supporters are not being dismissed. She lost and that does not mean she automatically gets the VP spot.
Lets see, HIllary Clinton, BIll Clinton, and her supporters have been demonized by the Obama supporters. The Clintons have been accused of racism. Her supporters have been accused of racism. Or of being uneducated rubes.
So, they are going to forget all the mud slung by the Obama fanatics and fall in line? Not likely. Obama's problem isn't his race--it's his fanatical supporters who will say anything to attack someone who questions his sainthood.
Working class whites aren't voting for Obama because he offers them NOTHING in the economic sphere. He's got right leaning Goolsbee whispering economic nonsense in his ear. They remember the good economy under Clinton and see Hillary Clinton as the best agent to get back on track. That is not racism, nor is it ignorant.
Because he is an African American and the first to be a viable presidential candidate, Obama has working class African Americans voting for him in a solid bloc. Is that racism?
There is not much Hillary Clinton can say to her supporters that would really help Obama. He has to help himself. The first step would be to offer a serious economic and health care plan that is based on reality and not Goolsbee's Chicago school nonsense.
how about about " above all else we are democrats, and any nominee, including my opponent would be significant improvements over past and future republicans. That although obama and i have some differences they pale in comparison to the differences we have with the corporate divisive party whose only purpose is to line the pockets of rich friends, eliminate the chance for universal healthcare, and that will surely nominate anti populist, antifeminist, anti civil rights judges and this must be prevented regardless of which one of us ends up being the candidate. "
It seems to me that clinton has already said that she is "honored" to be in the race with Obama, and that she will support the democratic nominee, so why , as her supporter , wouldn't you?
it also seems to me that Obama's policies are merely different in nuance from clinton's, and any policies promised by a president are inherently modified by congress and conditions, making those nuanced differences meaningless. I seem to remember hillary promising us healthcare in 92. I don't blame her intentions, but as you can see, we never got close to what was promised.
African-Americans want to see a Black person in the White House. This country was built on our backs for FREE and we were denied basic human rights. The right to vote, marry, own property, breathe, etc. So when a Black candidate comes along that has a serious chance at becoming the next POTUS, YOU BET YOUR A$$ WE ARE GOING TO STAND BEHIND HIM. If he wasn't in the race, Blacks would vote for a White person. Some of Hillary's supporters have clearly stated they would not vote for Obama because he is Black - that's racism.
Is it sexist when a female votes for Clinton because they want to see a woman in the White House?
By the way, stop playing the victim, it is so pathetic and tired. Clinton supporters have given as much they got. I don't believe that all of her supporters are like the ones that spit their venom all over these blogs and so I'm not worried. The smart supporters on BOTH sides will come together and drown you phonies, on BOTH sides, OUT!!!
Because he is an African American and the first to be a viable presidential candidate, Obama has working class African Americans voting for him in a solid bloc. Is that racism?
There is a underlying difference between the two.
When blacks vote for BHO it is because of admiration.
When those in KY vote for HRC it is because of hate and ignorance.
I am not saying this for all working class whites and not even working class whites that support HRC. Though to say that it is not a factor is to ignore exit polls, and experiences that I have had in those states.
Let me make a suggestion.
She is not 'in it to win it' anymore. She is in it to finish the game she started. There maybe to percieveable way for her to win, but she doesnot want to walk off the court before the clock stops.
I believe she is in it so that she can say that she was the first viable female candidate to compete in all 50 states, amass an unprecendented amount of vote and not get pushed out of the race despite the catcalls and the unbelieveable disparagement of her character. She has set a new standard and new bar by which women will judged in the future as she has shown her toughness, her tenacity, her grit and determination.
That is what this is about. So I think we should all just calm down and let the voting finish.
This is what comes of being on "teams", instead of closely watching and listening to what's going on. A voter should be fluid and judicious in his judgments, not just latch on to one candidate and blindly follow to the end. As we get to know our candidates better, I think it is much healthier - for us, for the country - if we reevaluate as we go along and feel free to jump camps, parties, whatever. In the end, we want to vote for the candidate who most closely represents our own needs, our ideals, no? Why shoot yourself in the foot with all the faux loyalty? Once again, we need to actually 'see' who our candidates really are, not just attach our own little brand of fairytale visions and expectations to one of them and then be surprised when things don't end up going along with those expectations. Try to remember that all the candidates are human (a none too reassuring characteristic, right off the bat) and so none of them will actually measure up to our highest ideals. They may sound like they will, but, ultimately, you can lay odds that they won't. The best we can do is hope for the best. That we don't end up with another sweet-talking, very convincing Nancy Pelosi-type, who knows how to charm the pants off everyone while on the campaign trail, then does a complete about-face just as soon as she is firmly ensconced in the power seat.
Hmm. Just after West Virginia, didn't she say this (on May 13 in Charleston, WV)?
"And I believe that this campaign has been good for the Democratic Party and good for our country. People are discussing and debating issues. They are turning out in record numbers to register and to vote. There is an excitement about politics that is the lifeblood of our democracy.
"For me, this election isn't about who's in or who's out or who's up or who's down. It"s about the common threads that tie us together " rich and poor, young and old, black and white, Latino and Asian, Democrats, Republicans, and Independents. We are united by common values. We all want a better world for our children, and we want the best for our country. And we are committed to putting a Democrat back in the White House.
"And our nominee " our nominee will be stronger for having campaigned long and hard, building enthusiasm and excitement, hearing your stories and answering your questions. And I will work my heart out for the nominee of the Democratic Party to make sure we have a Democratic President. "
I believe the author wants Hillary to denounce the racism that Obama has faced in this campaign just like her supporters are demanding that Obama denounce the sexism she has faced.
I'll take your word for it that she did. She also has since gone on to say that hard working, white Americans support her more; and now that votes in Florida and Michigan (where Obama wasn't listed on the ballot!), states that she agreed to sanction for breaking Democratic party rules, should count. My point being, saying what you've quoted, and leaving it at that, might have been effective. Saying what you've quoted, and then contradicting it, and continuing to disparage the likely nominee, and continuing to exploit racial divisions, and continuing to try to subvert party agreements late in the game, don't help.
Just one man's opinion, though.
Posted May 19, 2008 | 04:40 PM (EST)