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
Loading comments…
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
At this point in the primary race, Senator Clinton is no more a fighter than a two year old who kicks and screams because he didn't get his way. To believe her popular vote argument requires us to ignore the will of many voters and yet the media continues to report her argument as if it were true.
Could you trust her as President when she continues to bend and spin the facts to conform to her desired version of reality? Haven't had enough of that? Isn't honesty part of electability?
Can you trust someone who pledges not to participate (in writing) in the Florida and Michigan primaries, agrees with the sanctions, and then goes back on her word? Isn't honor an important part of electability?
How can you say that she is more electable when the core of her arguments are dependent on ignoring the rules and gaming the system? Isn't integrity a key to electability?
It's long past time to end the misery and get on with the business of winning back the White House.
I agree with you. She complained that Senator Obama had nothing to campaign on was a speech and his ability to draw large crowds, it appears to me that she and her team are asking him to use those very abilities to help her get out of debt ... speaking of which; For someone with so much experience why is she in debt and he isn't? Why has his core staff remained intact and hers hasn't? All of her attack dogs couldn't get this for her .. .she's just a spoiled brat who doesn't know how to lose gracefully.
"You may 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. " This is contradictory. A leader is not a fighter and the two should not be confused.
A leader is someone in whom people place their trust.
A leader is someone who is cohesive.
A leader is someone who inspires.
A leader is someone who encourages and guides.
A leader does not stoke the fires of anger in those who follow.
A leader does not leave you feeling outraged, violated and forgotten.
A leader actively listens, plans appropriately, uses diplomacy and knows when to compromise.
A leader is not offensive, nor divisive.
A leader by definition is one who is in charge or in command of others, influential and powerful.
Do we really consider "fighting" a leadership quality?
People fight when they are threatened.
They fight when there is no other way to get what they want.
Fighting is defined as an attempt to harm or gain power over an adversary by blows or with weapons. To fight is to contend with or struggle against someone or something, or to try to prevent the development of success.
Fighting is, even in it's most basic definition, a negative trait.
Hillary thought that we wanted a fighter.
What we need and desire is someone to lead us. Someone who understands that it is our differences that make us stronger, not weaker.
Well said DebLee.
I think Obama should float her the idea of Cabinet position. That could could restore some stature and still keep the Clintons as allies.VP would forever piss off BOTH Obamaists and Clintonistas and not keep her busy enough.. Plus H.C is at her best on policy , which could be useful in the Cabinet but all but wasted in the VP ( the way the old VP was done anyway).
The party does not deserve to win now. This whole thing has been so creepy from the jump--who is fueling this guy? It can't be his extreme skill that has catapulted him out of a 60-day-a-year state legislature job into the hearts of the media, youth contingent, and brie set. His health plan is now the one she proposed. It is all shifting--and I promise you, there is a force behind this. Everyone is boo-hooing over McClellan and how the press did not do its job--well, it's not doing it now.
Sorry His Health Care Plan has never been the one she proposes ,not now ,not ever.
Go to their respective websites and you will see the details,thats assuming you can identify little details but important.
His healthcare has NOT changed. The only difference between his plan and hers is that hers has a mandate. If you thought his just left 15million people out in the cold, you were spun by the Clinton campaign.
And America is still an extremely racist society. So racist, in fact, that when anyone around Obama mentions the reality of black people, HE gets accused of anti-white racism. Also, Obama has had to do everything possible to be as "unblack" as possible. His emergence isn't demonstration that race isn't an issue. His emergence is a credit to his incredibly skill, talent, intellect, and values. Not to some voter "affirmative action." Black men don't get where Obama is on "a speech."
Please, take another look at him, his record, and his values. And the 7 "present" votes out of hundreds were political strategy. He has a perfect 100 from the Illinois NARAL.
actually it was 132 present votes out of 4100 votes cast.
Well, yeah, of course there's a force behind Obama. There's a force behind every Presidential candidate who gets this far. Stop wasting your time being scared. I, for one, am choking on the fear emanating from way too many of you "democrats". It's childish, useless, destructive, and unbecoming of an intelligent forward-looking American.
The force behind Obama is not the "evil" one, so relax. McBush has that sewn up.
And you should really stop dismissing the youth vote. They are the future, not us. It's time to listen to them.
maybe it was the complete incompetence of Hillary, Penn, Ickes, Mcauliffe.
Star123, he has enough experience that he hasn't squandered 200 million dollars!!!!! "this guy" as you put it is a United States Senator, with as much capability to be President of the United States as Senator Clinton -- eveidently the person you are supporting in spite of her ability to tell the truth, and the fact the the majority of the American electorate don't trust her, and the media crowned her a year ago, but she's managed to squander that also. It's not the media's fault you candidate is losing, it's hers! I'm not part of the "youth contingent, "media" or the "brie set" and I wholeheartedly support Senator Barak Obama! The press is reporting the facts, your candidates and her attack hounds are trying to go around rules, ignore facts, and just plain steal a nomination. Senator Obama has proven to be a good candidate AND a gentleman, your candidate is not a good candidate or a lady, she's a spoiled brat!
Democrats not only "really want to win" an election in November. Democrats are destined to win the election this November. That takes away the electability argument. Once Hillary endorses and strongly supports Obama, as she should have done months ago, then I will give her a break.
No poll now is going to mean anything to superdelegates or at any meeting. Senator Clinton is smart enough to know that. It's time for her to work on behalf of the United States of America and support Barack Obama as a candidate for president.
Hilary Rosen, I have a tremendous amount of respect for you. You have been one of the very few sensible Clinton supporters from the beginning. I truly respect your views and enjoy reading your articles.
With that being said, the Clinton camp is the one that constantly claims that polls don't mean anything. Barack has been leading in national polls against Hillary by double digits for quite some time. He beats McBush in states Hillary loses to him. He wins some states at a higher % than Clinton does against McBush, and she beats him against McBush at a higher % in other states. The fact of the matter is, right now, they BOTH beat John McBush in the national polls.
The important thing RIGHT NOW is Barack consistently beats Hillary in the NATIONAL polls overwhelmingly. November is 6months from now, once Barack starts focusing exclusively on McBush his winning % over McBush will widen.
he doesnt need clinton and i hope he doesnt choose her.
The only problem with your argument is that polls are completely useless at this point. Obama has been the recipient of every bit of mud that both Hillary and the Republicans could throw at him over the past 6 months. Whereas Hillary has been treated by kid gloves by Obama and basically ignored by the GOP smear machine up 'till now.
Not to mention the fact that Hillary is too bitter, too cold, too calculating, too divisive to be an effective national leader at this point.
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.
Do Obama supporters want Hillary supporters to vote for him? Yes or No?
Bottom line 1: Obama will need a fervent, skilled, and tireless campaigner in Hillary Clinton to win in November.
Bottom line 2: It's not in her own best interest to do so. She has much more to gain if he loses so she could run again in 2012.
I sincerely appreciate Rosen's plea, but I'm holding my breath to see if Clinton will be able to turn a ship around that has been going in every direction but that which would help the party to stay strong.
HRC would be a damned fool if she expended considerable effort on Obama's behalf.
Obama unleashed his surrogates in a vile, unsupportable (and in my opinion, forever unforgiveable) effort to paint anyone who did not fervently support him as a racist redneck - despite the many ample reasons why thinking individuals would not. She owes Obama not one thing.
The Democratic Party abandoned her a long time ago - Reid and Pelosi and others hotly demanding that she quit well early on; Dean slyly didn't lift a finger to stop it.
Even if Obama should be elected POTUS, he will require the support of a clearly dominant Democratic Congress and Senate to be effective at creating change - whatever that means. Despite her utter abandonment by the Democratic Party elite leadership, HRC does seem to have a role to play in the general election.
HRC should lend Obama basic support, and, if she chooses, should support the different Senate and Congressional candidates that OPENLY seek her help. Otherwise, she should settle back into her role as an effective U.S. Senator from New York. If she wishes, she may be more effective filling, to some extent, the huge shoes that seem to be left empty the the inimitable Ted Kennedy.
Your facts are a bit out of whack here. And, you are making the kind of statements that will harm the party. Let's look at some facts.
Any efforts to depict those not supporting Obama as you suggest came from a number of sources, mostly heated supporters. They did not come from Obama. Pundits, bloggers, columnists and supporters all say things that the candidates cannot be held accountable for. Hillary included.
Hillary did pursue attacking Obama regarding the 'bitter' comments which were taken way out of context and used to her advantage. The Rev. Wright issues were posted on YouTube by John McCain's camp.
Calls for Hillary Clinton to exit have not come from Obama's camp. They did not come from Reid or Pelosi until we reached the mathematical impossibility of her winning, and even then statements were general, not directed at Senator Clinton. There has been much patience, much respect, much gentle treatment given to Mrs. Clinton throughout this campaign. Obama has taken the high road on many occasions, when he could have given a knock-out punch. That did nothing but fuel her campaign and the impossible hopes of her supporters, whom SHE misled into thinking there actually was a chance to win the nomination.
If you are disillusioned with anyone, it should be Hillary Clinton, herself.
The democratic party did not abandon her. She abandoned the democratic party.
This is small-minded revengeful thinking. Doesn't do anyone any good except for the Republicans.
Obama did not unleash a torrent of racism through his surrogates. That's not him, and I've been watching closely for nearly a year. He's half white, remember.
but anyway, Hillary pledged that she would work her heart out to see that a Democrat gets in the White House in 2009 no matter who the nominee is. I choose to believe her. Because I respect her and love my country more than my own wounded female ego.
why doesn't she just declare herself an independent? because what you describe sure isn't a democrat.
If Rosen was a true friend, she would help her friend face facts and save what little she has left from the people that supported her family all these years? How can you lose a full demographic like the black vote? I tell you how, not telling the media that Bill doesn't speak to me about Obama and Jessie Jackson! That my friend was the start of the break down. The black community is a loyal group and to lose that was just unreal...
Biracial person talking here! So sad—Help your friend Rosen, that's what friends do when they can't see clearly!
Define Friend:
A person who gives assistance; patron; supporter:
Help her see the light to a new career perhaps like Ted Kennedy who is a great man!
Ms. Rosen,
C'mon. It's a highly flawed argument that everyone knows she can't and won't win. At this point, there is no doubt that this silly carrying on is enflaming her supporters. She is making a case to her constituency that the election is being stolen from her. If I were a supporter of hers listening to her make her case, I'd probably be angry too.
Her refusal to accept the fact that she ran a highly flawed campaign that was based on her thinking that the primaries were a mere formality leading up to her coronation. At this point, she is absolutely hurting Obama's chances in November to the point that one has to wonder if this is her intention.
Last night Gerladine Ferraro was on Fox with Sean Hannity (he's even worse than Limbaugh) and there they both are calling Obama a liar. Hannity's new angle is to position Obama as dishonest based on his handling of his "Church" matters. And there is Ferarro totally agreeing with Hannity in that disgusting condescending tone of hers. Maybe she can speak after Leiberman at the Republican convention. There is no doubt in my mind that she would rather see McCain as President.
On what planet do they think the superdelegates are going to take the nomination away from Obama?
If McCain wins in November we will have the Clintons to thank. God help us.
Joe P.
When has Hillary led anything, except her campaign and one can hardly call her a great leader with that history. The states that she could win and Obama cannot will look different when she is no longer in the race stirring up this kind of crap. besides, no one can project what will happen in November.
Fight on, Hillary Clinton! You've got to take this fight to the convention.
If Senator Obama were the one only 160 delegates behind, and tied or leading in the popular vote, his supporters would be demanding that he continue -- and the media would already be gearing up for the protracted fight.
No one would expect Senator Obama to give up when there are three months left to this race and 800+ superdelegates who can change their mind at any point up to the vote at the convention.
Maybe I could understand pushing to choose the nominee now if Senator Obama had a long public history If, for instance, this race were between you and John Kerry. But Senator Obama doesn't have a long history and these next three months are essential in order to learn more about him -- especially since what we've learned so far is nothing but troubling.
I just don't know why they're trying to shut you down. Maybe it's because you're a woman and they underestimate you, or maybe it's because people have short memories or don't know history, or maybe it's because nearly everyone in the press is gaga for Obama. But whatever it is...
Please take this to the convention! If you lose there in a fair fight and you want me to vote for Senator Obama, I will consider it. If you get shut down before that, I will leave the Democratic party along with millions of other women.
Just know we're
Actually when she thought she would be ahead in delgates on Super Tueday she expected Obama and everyone else to step aside graciously so she would be the nominee. She said repeatedly that it would be over in Feb. Apparently losing with grace is only something she expects but doesn't extend. Says a lot about character, that.
Only a republican would want to see this go to the convention. This is not about Hillary. It is about keeping John McCain from waging war for a hundred years. It is about women's rights. It is about not reinstating the draft and seeing more of our children die. It is about having enough revenue for the federal government to function by refusing to institute further tax cuts. It is about jobs, security, safety, health, economic growth, global warming.
It isn't about Hillary.
That's how you folks do it, right? Anyone who doesn't worship your messiah is smeared as either a racist or not really a democrat. But you're right in part, it's not about Hillary; it's about trying to prevent the party from nominating one of the weakest candidates in its history. Obama will not win in November. I'm sorry that you can't see it, but don't smear me with your insults because I can.
"The power of clear vision is called cynicism by those who have not got it." --George Bernard Shaw
You are very right. If you go to real clear politics they give you the counts of all the caucuses and jprimaries with and with out Florida and Michigan.. At this particular point and even before Puerto Rico voted they had Hillary as having the greater edge of the popular vote. Everyone knows that it's the delegate count that gets the nomination. Neither Hillary nore Obama have enough votes from the primaries. It is the super delegates who will be deciding this election. I am not sure but I think that Hillary is about 100 shy of Obama in pledged delegates but she is ahead in the popular vote. How the super delegates decide is up to them but it seems to me if I were a super delegate I would be concerned about winning and that the popular vote might have more credence with me especially with a neophyte like Obama. His latest effort at appeasing those who wanted him to leave Trinity really casts him in a bad light. Appeasers are frowned upon.
then tell Hillary to stop trying to appease the SD's. It's already over.
Huh? If Obama was behind with no way to catch her in pledge delegates, he would have dropped out long ago. In fact, anyone other than Hillary Clinton would have dropped out. And frankly, the Obama supporters would have voted for Hillary even if we had to hold our noses.
If it is in fact true, that Hillary's supporters will vote for a man that surely will appoint another Alitto type judge to the supreme court. Someone who thinks we should attack countries who don't agree with us instead of talking to them and someone who believes that rich people and corporations are over-taxed than what does that say about you all? Does the expression "cut your nose off to spite your face" mean anything to you?
Granted, we don't always get exactly who we want to vote for in a Presidential election, but for crissakes in this case (assuming you are a Democrat) you'd have to really hate Obama to vote for McCain.
Why are we trying to "shut her down?" Because her antics are hurting "our" chances (the Democrats) of winning in November.
I can't believe that you don't see that.
Joe P.
A long public history? You mean being a public wife and a short stint as a senator?
I swear people make Hilliary out to be some kind of paragon of experience when she has only been a bystander for most of it. I watch lawyers work every day . . . I guess that gives me years of legal experience.
The measure of a good and bad President is not experience. It never has been. George Washington had no experience as a politician. Neither did Abraham Lincoln. Those men were measured by the quality of their character, their judgment and their ability to inspire people. They had a whole cabinet of experience to draw from.
Even scientific studies have shown that experienced people can still have poor judgment and make dumb mistakes because of it. Experienced politicians are also more likely to be corrupted by the system they have been swimming in.
If experience as a politician and/or experience watching them work is really your make or break measure of a candidate then that sounds like koolaid talking and not common sense.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
