A Message to Hillary Clinton, Part 1: "Don't Look Back"

You make think that what your supporters want is "fight," but what we want is leadership.

And a president who will get up everyday and fight the important fights. Sometimes the unwinnable fights are important -- (healthcare, education, jobs, civil rights) -- and sometimes they are not -- (4 votes from a committee who were really doing their honest best to make chicken salad out of chicken shit).

So please ignore the voices that are encouraging you to make a fight over the 4 delegates left on the table.

There are two primaries to go. And then it is Decision Day for the rest of the delegates -- the superdelegates. There are some good arguments for you left to make to the superdelegates who must make their decision based on who they want to be the nominee.

I just read the polls on RealClearPolitics.com. They say that in a general election matchup you beat John McCain in a majority of the 19 targeted battleground states more easily than Barack Obama can. In 5 key states, you can beat McCain and so far he can't. He only beats McCain in 3 states that you lose.

I personally believe that Barack Obama can beat John McCain in November too. But the polls show, at least for now, that you would give us a more comfortable cushion for the inevitable ebb and flow of campaign politics.

For the next 24 hours, make your case based on the electability argument. It may be persuasive. Democrats really want to win this election in the fall.

Don't stir up our base with anger and the irrationality of the "if onlys." Let the Rules and Bylaws Committee decision go. Those 4 delegates don't matter at this point.

You are a great leader. Lead your supporters with the right argument.

Follow Hilary Rosen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/hilaryr

Comments

[mivogo]

You're right. Hillary should run on electability, because we need a winner. But the bigger truth is that she can't win--not because the Republicans are praying she does because it will stir their base, but because they are holding a trump card, just waiting to play it.
The card is Bill. I have admired him as President, but before the Vanity Fair article came out, I knew two separate woman who claim Bill hit on them while Hillary was running. I'm sure I'm not the only one who has heard these first-hand stories, and the odds are that the Repubs have proof. Despite my admiration for Bill, I'm afraid this is a matter of chickens coming home to roost--Hillary tolerated this for years, and now it is coming back to haunt her. This is the main reason why she will drop out tomorrow. Just watch. Go Obama.

[yhgtup]

Around January of 2007, my friends in Canada told me that Bill was seeing a woman that lives very close to them. They have actually seen him. The media has conveniently not reported on this. They have also conveniently not reported that the Clintons invited Rev Wright to the Oval Office when Bill cheated with Monica Lewinsky. He was invited for "spiritual guidance". Their longtime friend, filmmaker Michael Moore wrote about it in an open letter on his website.

Open Letter Dated April 21, 2008 www.michaelmoore.com

[midwestdoc]

Hilary- As an Obama supporter, I want to thank you for contributing a reasoned and polite argument, unlike most of the ranting on both sides of the blogosphere. Your argument about electability could be made a little more quantitative by looking at the very sophisticated and sensible statistical site http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ by the famed Poblano. As a snapshot today, HRC has a 64% chance of winning, vs. 52% for BHO. These numbers have drifted around quite a bit over the last weeks, so who is really more electable depends a lot on factors we can only guess at. The predictive markets still give the Dem, almost certainly BHO according to them, around 60% chance of winning, presumably because some angry Dems are expected to return home. In light of their different stances on war and peace, one might also argue that BHO is enough better than HRC to justify the slightly higher risk.

At any rate, the more voices of reason that speak out, the better for the Dem. nominee.

[skysage]

Hillary doesn't have the common sense to know when it's over for her. Why you keep trying to support her is beyond me. You seem to forget who she really is - - - a dictator that supports the corporate thirst for power and selfish gain. She represents all I dislike about politics --- lies, distortions, exaggerations and manipulations. No, Hillary should go back to her nest and lick her wounds for another day. She doesn't support the light of democracy and the generosity of heart necessary to lead our country. Why, Ms. Rosen, supports her is a mystery to people who are really aware who Hillary really is. We do not need another dictator. We are trying to get rid of one already. There is no place in our democracy for such people who claim they have the experience to help all Americans when their experience shows that they have always supported their own ambitions.

[CHARLIESBABI]

Hillary Rosen supports Hillary Clinton because she is among the people who see thru Obama and his persuasive language promising CHANGE, but never lets us in on WHAT CHANGE! If you dare too, and havent already drank too much of his koolaid, go to www.dontvoteobama.net and see the real Obama for yourself! Now you may say this is propaganda, but anyone knows where there is that much smoke there is fire somewhere, Dont take my word for it! Research for yourself, if you dare! And a lot of the quotes are from Obama,s own words. He is not fit to be president! He is not some celibrity rock star, neither is he the messiah, as some of his cult like followers seem to think. If he is elected, i urge everyone to be prepared for a change they will not welcome or expect! But i can promise you one thing, not all of Hillary,s supporters will fall in line behind Obama because we wont. We will vote for McCain!

[JustMyWords]

Or you could go to Obama's website and read what he actually has to say and what he actually proposes.

[omahkohkiaayo]

One of the central and false premises of "identity politics" is that only someone from a given group is best qualified/able to represent and understand the unique needs of that group. Just as there have been some whites that have done more for the interests of non-whites than some of the more theatrical, posturing and opportunistic non-whites purporting to speak for their whole group, the same applies with respect to gender, sexual orientation and other forms or foci of identity-politics-driven politicos. Another false premise is that any given identity group is some kind of homogeneous and undifferentiated mass. Indeed social class is as unifying as it is divisive, and often poor white males or even non-white males have more in common with poor non-white females than do poor white females have in common with middle-class or rich NOW-type white females; which is why organizations like NOW and individuals like Hillary have little to say about or to poor white or non-white women.

No historically-oppressed group can ever find or achieve true liberation by imitating their oppressors or demanding an "equal opportunity" to become an oppressor.

Identity politics, like jingoistic "patriotism" is narcissism and opportunism incarnate. It says MY group is most important or worthy or praise/focus because I, ME was born into it. For many Americans, being proud to be a whatever is really about being "proud" that one's parents did not practice birth control on American soil.

[issuesvoter]

I must vote for McCain. The DNC seems to think that I (and others) are just disgruntle HRC supporters who will 'return to the fold' if Hillary Clinton asks us to do so. That is not the case................this is far more serious than just about the two Dem candidates. Obama cannot have my vote with his complete lack of world experience. And.....his current dillydallying over the recent church/rev/priest issues further show his lack of experience. This cannot be overcome in this election cycle (perhaps 8 or so years hence wit h good Senate experience and good judgment of the issues) he could earn anot her chance to vie for the candidacy. This is about the complete lack of respect shown to women by Howard Dean and the DNC. I have never visited Hillary's website or contributed to her campaign, she was simply the best candidate the Dems put forth. Since she will be out, I must vote for the other experienced candidate....John McCain. We are not silly little girls who are pouting, we are mothers, grandmothers and women will a deep concern for the future of our country. John McCain is very far removed from G. Bush (and also Karl Rove). He will be a good president if we cannot have a qualified women with a passion for justice like Hillary. Wake up Howard Dean ... you are the one tearing the party apart and are going to be responsible for losing the General Election.

[thebirdstheword]

how ironic that you go by "issuesvoter", however nothing you care about are really issues.

a better moniker for you would be "manufactured hyperbolevoter". That would fit you better.

[HowietheScreamer]

Trollvoter is better still. That's what he is. a TROLL>

[Goldie9]

"John McCain is very far removed from G. Bush (and also Karl Rove). "

Your troll colors are shining through -- McBush will be the McSame (if not worse) than the last 8 years!

[DenveRockwell]

If you were really "mothers, grandmothers and women with a deep concern for the future of our country," you would not vote McCain. Not in a million years.

Enjoy your freedoms being taken away one by one. And remember that YOU made that change happen.

Congratulations. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution. Proud of yourself?

[kcam44]

Victim eh? Too bad..You sound like a silly little girl who's pouting..Go ahead and vote for McCain, if you're truly sincere and have a deep concern for our country, then you're a fool to vote for McCain. Hillary tore this party apart with her race baiting, alleged sexism, negativity and mcuh more. Hope you can forgive her for doing what she did to this party.

You say Obama has "lack of world experience", so I assume Hillary's "world experience" qualifies her to be POTUS. Can you be more specific on her world experience? If she wasn't a former first lady with a well-known name, she wouldn't have gotten this far. She felt entitled and assumed the Presidency, but she was so wrong!! Hope she's learned from her major mistakes. Good Luck with your McCain vote.

[orglib]

You may not be a "silly little girl" but you are acting like one. I am a woman too and there is no way I can justify a vote for McCain. Experienced? Yes, but the wrong kind of experience. It is not Howard Dean who will be responsible for losing the GE, it will be people like you. You would rather vote for
McCain who holds the polar opposite view as true Democrats. A vote for McCain is a vote for a continued war and bloodshed in Iraq, more deaths!!! more wars!!! more uninsured, more who lose their homes due to foreclosure, continued tax cuts during time of war to the top who don't need it. In fact, Hillary and Barack's platforms are nearly identical. I am so furious with you and the rest that hold your same stubborn view. You continue to blame the DNC, Sexists, the rules committee but what about the millions that have voted for Barack. Should their votes not count? Are we all corrupt? This has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with a close race - their has to be one winner and one loser. Shame on you for abandoning the real reason why both of them entered this race - to get a Democrat into the White House and finally put this tragic mess behind us. God help us all if McCain wins. Now buck up and get over it. This is too important .

[debrouillard]

By the way the I dont understand those people who keep pointing at the polls. Barack has said "We will no lead by polls but by principles"
Advice of these nature is partly the cause of her failed campaign. Remember the polls had her at one point 20% point ahead,literally "The Inevitable". But here we go today.

And you guys are still talking about polls. One of my favourite lines in the movie The Untouchables is "Never start fighting ,untill the fight has start". The fight between McCain and Obama hasnt started,when it starts we shall then look at the polls.

[gdogs]

"We will no lead by polls but by principles"

One has to be elected in order to lead by principles. Personally, I don't think he has a chance against McCain. I guess we should all prepare ourselves for the inevitable "stolen election" conspiracy theories come November. Truth is, we will have managed to lose another one... all on our own this time.

I was really hoping that the Republican party would be the one to shift their ideals after a brutal defeat. My biggest fear now is that the Democrats will be forced to change theirs after a loss in the general election.

I will agree that the fight between Obama and McCain hasn't started yet, 'cause when it does, it will only get worse for Obama. Call it swiftboating if you like, but many of the issues he will get hammered repeatedly for, were created by his own doing. God this is going to be ugly.

[dem2win]

Hillary isn't stirring up the anger. The party leaders, cable media, bloggers and Clinton haters in general have stirred up a lot of anger in a lot of women and that anger is not going to go away. In fact, I am not sure how much control Hillary has over her supporters at this time. This primary has reeked of sexism since the beginning and it has just gone too far. At this point it doesn't matter if it is Hillary Clinton and Jane Doe. The fact that the first viable, qualified female democratic canidate and been demonized by her own party--the party she helped build is just too much for many women and men who reccognize that if Barracks name happened to be Bernice, Hillary Clinton would be our nominee. the democratic party has no one to blame for this division except itself. I will vote for McCain in the fall and it will be my first time ever supporting a republican in my 15+ years of voting.

[nypoet22]

I heavily dispute the assertion that Barack's gender is what made him preferred over Clinton. I think if Barack had been "Bernice," Hillary's supporters would have lodged the exact same arguments. "She can't win," or "Doesn't that woman know she's setting back the rights of her own gender?" would be among the many arguments lodged at the first viable black female candidate for president.

However, "Bernice" would still win, because she would have been the one to build the ground organization, and she would have been the one who built a winning strategy. She would have remained cool and positive in the face of the harshest and most misleading criticism. She would be the one who delivered uplifting speeches based on her own ideals, not what some pollster told her to microtarget. She, as a relative newcomer, would have more credibility on trying to change the power of lobbying in washington, and she would have opposed the war in iraq from the beginning, not just when it was convenient. Bernice would have won the same states and would be in the same position. then republicans and clinton die-hards would have to come up with a different reason why she lost. maybe, just maybe, it's because her campaign simply didn't do a very good job.

[mbbythesea]

what's that old critique of HRC? that she is DIVISIVE
well....she's sure lived down that label.......uh...okay...maybe not
and this time it is the democratic party she has divided
because in her mind...ONLY SHE CAN TRIUMPH
wow what an ego
hopefully the HRC ladies will focus on the big picture
the things that unite us are bigger than that which divides
it's the policies. the actions, the vision, not the gender; not the race people

[Nonamnesiac]

Hillary Rosen, George Stephanopoulos, Begala, Carville, Dee Dee Myers, Terry MacAuliffe, all have racist crystal balls. They're singing and dancing to Hillary's choice for her campaign's song -- Dixie -- with Bill belting out on his sax. They each sing and dance a different version so they look independent, but all of them have internalized Dixie -- claiming Hillary's popularity with racist voters who won't vote for her against McCain proves she should get the nomination -- because she's more electable.

They all just ignore the rules -- lie with conviction -- and simply ignore that she is the most incompetent politician ever -- worse than Kerry. She did the impossible -- lost a nomination against a virtual unknown whose middle name is Hussein even though she had the full weight of the Clinton machine behind her for the nomination of the Democratic Party. And she bankrupted her own campaign on top of that, even though it was very well financed.

It appears she did not get away with voting to put many young Americans lives and limbs at risk while bankrupting the country against the interests of the Untied States. Had she voted right at that time, she probably would have won the nomination. Another bad calculation.

Instead, she and her posse are singing look away, look away, look away Dixieland.

[Manx]

I find your post naive. What do you think would happen if the superdelegates ignored the will of the voters and wrested the nomination from the first viable black candidate in history? The reaction would be historic and the convention in Denver would be chaotic. The Democratic party would implode.

History shows that primary polls are unreliable. And I don't understand the pundits and talking heads on cable news who extrapolate that primary voters for Hillary Clinton won't vote for Obama in the general election. Are they basing their conclusions on real data or just conjecture and speculation?
Wait until the women over fifty find out that McCain wants to privatize social security and further radicalize the system beyond what Bush wanted to do. I think Obama will win the general election after real issues are discussed rather than he said, she said cable news tabloid fodder.

[nypoet22]

since when has any tv news organization discussed real issues? twenty years? thirty? check out the news on tv and he-said she-said cable news tabloid fodder is all you'll find.

[PHLSouthernJack]

Hilary, it is not the 4 votes that has most people ticked off it is the 55 Delegates given to Barack Obama when the rules of the DNC do not allow that. An 'uncommitted' delegate is to be uncommitted until they make their vote at the convention. In that situation the votes most likely would vote for Barack and some for Hillary. It is about the fair reflection clause in the DNC rules that was not followed. There is not rule of the DNC charter that allows what they did. But the Rules committee just handed them to Barack with a nice 'Screw You Hillary' bow on it. Barack took his name off the ballot along with John Edwards and Bill Richardson. They call it a flawed election even though there were 4 Democrats on the ballot. Barack did not receive any votes other than those as a write in vote but we cannot find out about those because Barack did not notify the board to count his write in votes. For a committee that touted the rules the rules the rules then make a decision against the rules.

[rgersmrk]

The whole catastrophe that was allowed to happen this weekend is and continues to be a problem. The DNC set the punishment for those states last year. If what they did over the weekend was the punishment they wanted to implement then they should have done it well before the last week of the friggin primary. All this does is encourage other states to do whatever the hell they want to do because guess what, if they get punished all they have to do is get a desperate politician losing in a primary to whine enough and the backbone of the DNC will shatter like glass.

All we did over the weekend was disenfranchise the voters who didn't turn out in Florida and Michigan (particularly in Michigan since Obama and other democrats honored their promise to pull their name off the ballot unlike the cheater Clinton). As well, congratulations on disenfranchising the 48 other states DNC. You are doing a great job....

[LesserFool]

Ms. Clinton didn't care about Florida and Michigan last year when she assumed she would win. And now that things have not turned out the way her and Ickes planned, she is pretending that she cares about these voters(votes) now. But even worse, she is comparing the DNC rules (which both candidates agreed to) to Bush stealing the election. It is pure, unadulterated inflamatory crap. And anyone who doesn't see this as hypocrisy isn't thinking clearly.

Ms. Clinton will not go gracefully into the night because she believes she is entitled to the presidency. Not only is she not entitled. But she has completely sank her future in politics. Hillary is too brilliant to be this stupid. To me, the only explanation for her myopic idiocy is that her ego and amibition has wrest control from her reason.

[monique]

That's right. In politics, you must live with your mistakes.

Clinton underestimated Obama in the caucuses, and she must live with that.

Obama took his name off the ballot WHEN HE WAS NOT FORCED TO DO SO, and he should have been forced to live with the repercussions.

Now, that the election is tight, and the superdelegates will decide the nominee, all criteria is fair game in each candidate making their case to be the nominee. They can use all assets in their arsenal, the number of pledged delegates no longer being the deciding factor.

Thus, Michigan and Florida were revisited because of their importance in the nominating process, and because it would be plain stupid for democrats to alienate two states we need.

Obama should have had to live with the fact that he willingly removed his name and she was savvy enough not to.

She must live with her miscalculations in the caucuses, and he should have had to live with his decision to remove his name.

[LisainNYC]

By your "reasoning" the MI and FL primaries should not count AT ALL. They should have to live with their decisions even though it was just "plain stupid" for them to move up their primaries.

Try logic for a change.

[Graz]

So in other words, a candidate or even the President should abide by an agreement they have made only when 'FORCED TO DO SO'?

[chebontenitkee]

Maybe you can live with the fact that Hillary Clinton vowed to remove her name from the MI ballot, in fact signed a pledge to do so, and then reneged. I don't think I should have to live with a Democratic nominee who is a liar and a cheat, who puts her own glory and sense of entitlement above her country and honesty. That's why I'll vote for Barack Obama, and never vote for Hillary Clinton.

[hcbuck]

If you read the actual pledge that all of the candidates signed - HRC included - it stated that they would not campaign nor PARTICIPATE in the elections.

Participation would be in having your name on the ballot.

She broke BOTH of the pledge rules and she knew it, stated that the elections wouldn't count for anything, then when she realized she wasn't going to be handed the nomination, the voters of MI because her pet cause.

It was stupid for the STATES of MI and FL to decide to jump ship and break a rule when they knew the consequences ahead of time. It is THEIR fault that the voters suffered and we had to go through this entire debacle.

I live in MI, by the way, and think that the votes should not have been counted (nor that HRC can claim her votes here, but BO can't claim any because he wasn't on the ballot. See above for reason.)

[thebirdstheword]

hillary supporters are the last ones who should be talking about rules. have you really deluded yourself this much? if you idiots would have abided by the rules in the first place, saturday's joke never would have happened.

[Goldie9]

Obama and the others removed their names from the MI ballot because they were asked to do so by the DNC -- everyone complied except Hillary who saw another "opportunity" for herself. Everyone knows this race is all about the Clintons and how they prefer to play the game! All agreed in 2007 that MI would not be a legitimate primary race, just like FLA... Obama offered to go 50-50 with the dividing the delegates on Saturday, and Hillary's camp said NO. Hillary preferred to NOT GIVE OBAMA ANY DELEGATES AT ALL -- that's just how much of a cheater she is! Good-bye Clintons!

[diamondgirl9]

It doesn't bother you that this so-called strong candidate,this crybaby wanted to change the rules in the middle of the game? If she was so concerned why didn't she advocate for full seating before she was losing? Why did she sign the pledge? Why is everything everybody else's fault and not hers? There was definely sexism involved-A man could have never gotten away with changing the rules because he was losing. A MAN WOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED WHAT SHE IS A CHEATER.

[gladys46]

Bill Clinton says that he "thought" he was out of politics until Hillary decided to run!!

Hillary Rosen ... is he praising her or is he placing blame on her for this horrific debacle of dividing the democratic party ... of causing the Latino population and "feminist" to be soo very ANGRY people?

[wrabbitt]

There is two ways to lose , one is with class, and the other is with none, if Obama loses in November, because of self centered Hillary, then if she runs in 2012 i will have to vote Republican. We will never forget what she has done, and History will save her a place with other Self centered bi polar,Bigots, and i am white and say this!

[Thurber]

That's rediculous. You don't have to vote Republican to not vote for Hillary. If she runs in 2012,fight like hell to make sure some, more qualified, more wise, politician get's the Democratic nod.

[Jonny38103]

Why? Because she ran a good race and ended up almost winning? What did she do to him? Sorry to say, most of Obama's problems are Obama created. Yes, I will vote for Obama, but don't blame Clinton for his problems. He has plenty of his own.

[hcbuck]

I'm sorry. I would not say that HRC ran a good race. Beside the financial issues, the divisiveness that eminated from her camp from her surrogates (and from her in some instances) was an embarrassment to me - both as a Democrat AND a woman.

[dwmulenex]

Only problem with "My friend Hillary, PT II, is the faulty politcial analysis. Going from polls during the primary to votes in the general election is bad thinking. There will be challenges ahead that Obama can't rise to, like improving the education level of West Virginians sufficiently to overcome a 25 percent primary vote based on racial prejudice. But I agree that Hillary's biggest personal challenge is to look at a defeat in a political race as an event. and not a judgment about her. I believe she is more able, more alert now than when she was serving tea and cookies on lace doilies in her first "let's start a conversation" internet ads. Had she started out with the less self exalted, more on the ground campaign character she is now, who knows how things might have turned out? Rember what Apollo Creed says when he beats Rocky? "No rematch." I'm sure Obama would agree.

[ArtsyJane]

Oh, please. She's no leader. She's the "wife of".
Even today, she continues with her ludicrous idea that she won the popular vote disregarding several caucus states in the process, it's unbelievable! If she had won the popular vote, she would have enough delegates and would be ahead of Obama, it's no rocket science.
Even today, she dares stand before the people and lie and cheat in their faces, disregarding the facts, disregarding reality, Dubya style. Don't you understand that THIS is what we don't want anymore! This is what we're all fed up with!
Her campaign is making a fuss of 4 delegates, who have no importance whatsoever in the final count. They're making a fuss of polls (as are you) showing her winning. This time last year, the polls were showing her winning too and look what happened. Obama is a unifying figure, much more capable of bringing people to vote for him who aren't his immediate electorate. She is not. She hasn't brought anyone to vote for her outside her immediate supporters base. She has even accomplished the opposite, she's driven many of her initial supporters to vote for Obama. I know a few. She's losing people, Obama is gaining people.
Contrary to what she says, more voters have voted AGAINST her than any other candidate in a primary in the history of the country.

[cacique88]

HuffPost's Pick

Ms Rosen, I am glad that you are sending a reasonable message to Hillary not to use the nuclear option in her efforts to gain the nomination. Your exhortation for leadership is also a noble one considering that the Clinton campaign has professed its intention to be a beacon of light for women in the US.

Yet the old Carole King song comes to mind. "It's too late baby, it's too late..."

She has failed to create a set of truths and principles independent of her persona that people ought to be following. Consequently it is difficult for her followers to behave in a responsible manner since all they have experienced is the reckless and irresponsible Republican style campaigning with its intention to destroy Barack's chances of winning in November. These followers have accepted and are acting upon a subliminal message. One that winning at any cost is ok even if it means aggrandizing your Republican opponent over your Democratic rival, two by encouraging racism and promoting the most backward elements of this society who would oppose the very goals of the women's movement.

What's more important in true leaders is that they are capable of inspiring leadership in others. I hope that you may discover your true leadership now as you have the unfortunate task of opposing the train wreck that a sector of her supporters wish to propel us into. Through your efforts this will not happen.

Stand firm and continue your work.