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

[standforpeace]

Of course your argument boils down to this: we should replace the primary season with one opinion poll right before the convention. We could save $500 million dollars that way, that's for sure.

There is however one big problem with your and Hillary's logic. The polls this far away from the election are notoriously unreliable. And that's why we ask candidates to demonstrate their strengths and superiority by doing the same thing required in November -- winning. And that is what Hillary failed to do and that is what makes her the weaker candidate. Remember 5 months before the primaries began, Hillary was the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party. She either squandered or surrendered that position to a guy who basically came from nowhere. Now it's 5 months before the general election and according to polls, she would beat John McCain. Exactly why would anyone believe that she wouldn't either squander or surrender this lead as well.

If I were a super delegate, I would go with the candidate who managed to break down one of the most powerful brands in American politics. I would go with the campaign staff that crafted a brilliant status to win the pledged delegate count. And unfortunately for Hillary, that appears to be exactly what the super delegates have done and will continue to do in the next few days.

[tommjk]

Yes, the candidate who broke down one of the most powerful brands in American politics by smearing the couple that brought us the only two-term Democratic presidency in 60 years and the greatest economic prosperity in our history. That's hardly an accomplishment deserving of the presidency. Do you even think about these things when you write such nonsense?

[snarkopolitan]

If Hillary is not held up to the standard of behavior that we should expect from any candidate, then it is an insult to women. No candidate before her has promoted the nominee of the other party over a colleague. I was appalled, and she lost the remaining respect I had for her after her craven war vote right there.
Her own actions have resulted in her losing the nomination. The bad planning, the intelligence insulting, mind-bending switch of positions on counting Michigan and Florida, demagoguing her campaign as being even remotely connected with Selma and Zimbabwe---these were choices she made. This is how she chose to use her power. To ascribe her failure to sexism would be to say her choices could not affect her fate. She made bad choices, used her power unwisely.
I expect as much from a candidate of my own sex as from anybody else. Some loyalty to a cause greater than that candidate's immediate political fortunes, for example.

[tbone99]

"Reagan, Bush Sr , Republicans are the party of Ideas."

What candidate before has promoted the the other party over theirs!?

[sky2blue]

What he said was that during the past nearly 3 decades, the Repubs were the party of ideas. What truly Democratic idea passed during the 90s? NAFTA? Deregulation? Welfare reform? Harsher drug laws? Losing a Dem majority in both houses of Congress?

I'll give the Clinton administration credit for SCHIPP and a better tax plan. But Kennedy had as much to do with SCHIPP has Hillary.

[LesserFool]

That's not what he said. He said that Reagan changed the trajectory of American politics — and that Republicans had been the party of ideas for the last decade or more. Those statements are true enough. Ever hear of the "Contract with America?" What Obama didn't say was that the Reagan trajectory or GOP ideas were good for America.

Also, what Obama did say was that "...my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world."

Compare that with Ms. Clinton who said she and McCain are experienced and ready for being president. But that Obama gave a good speech. It's one thing to compare yourself against another candidate in your party. It's quite another to elevate the other party's nominee while tearing your own primary challenger down.

[tbone99]

I am not in H.C's base but I get emails from both campaigns . Neither seems particularly resentment provoking.­As an observer I do think the months of trash talking from Obama's camp
( especially the slurs of "racism" for typical campaign rhetoric) has deeply offended the Clintonistas.

Just recently I've noticed the H.C supporters are starting to model their tirades after them, they seem late to Internet vitriol but are quickly catching on.But I think it's been the perception that the blogosphere and media have run a one sided fan club using really ugly sexism without any condemnation amongst his supporters­,.Meanwhil­e people seem to be more schooled in tiptoeing around blantant racist comments and are called out on it more often.

Coments about her campaign being responsible for her loss, but the resentment and refusal to give up from her supporters is coming from a much more personal place than just losing a political race.
Not sure how but this needs to be addressed and calling them and her names is just not cutting it.

[waverly]

Hillary lost the race....pe­riod! What world do you live in? "I lose but you have to give it to me anyways?" What irrational nonsense!

If Hillary has any class, she will graciously concede tomorrow night and urge her supporters to support Obama and the democratic party. If she doesn't...­.well, she won't like the consequences of her folly. At this point in time she is only a thorn in the party.

[RevolutionMan]

Party Unity and The Audacity of Hype.

As I read the comments on this article as well as listen to all the parry chairs talk of unity all I can think is they are out of touch with reality. It is obvious from the feelings here as well as every other site I visit that their is about as much unity as a joint meeting of the Shiite and Sunni factions in Iraq. Unless the Obama supporters can stop spitting venom at those who support Clinton, why would you expect them to vote for him come November? While you have both candidates speaking a bit kinder about their opponents now, the surrogates are still throwing fuel on the fire and so it will continue to burn and along with it the chance for a Democrat in the White House in 2009.

Another concept that keeps getting thrown around is how Clinton stood lock step with the republicans on the Iraq vote. I would take this time to point out that while Obama did not have to face a vote on this and the repercussions of saying no, he has still voted to keep the funding going every time he voted. That is not exactly standing up for his position on the war. If he was as against the war as he claims, then why not just vote no.

Let's hope that if he wins in November, he can live up to the hype.

[standforpeace]

There are three factors that are outside of the ability of these polls to measure.
1. Barack Obama has won the most pledged delegates (there is no debate about this) with overwhelming support from African Americans. If the Super Delegates were to overturn the results of the primaries/caucuses, there would be a massive Black revolt against the Democratic party both through organized stay home campaigns and the spontaneous decisions of individual Blacks. And there is no issue that the Democrats could use to scare Black voters back to the table. This is contrast to female supporters of Clinton who will recognize that a McCain presidency means an almost certain end to reproductive freedoms.

2. Clinton's numbers are artificially inflated right now as a result of what was a very respectful campaign by Barack Obama. Not one time did he or any other Democrats remind the voters about the shennigans that went along with Clinton's presidency. If Hillary were the candidate, do you really think that the 527s wouldn't run commercials around the clock remining voters of Monicagate, Whitewater, Travelgate, etc? This is in contrast to Obama whose relationship with Reverend Wright has likely already been milked for everything it's worth.

3. How could Hillary fend off McCain's argument that she gave Bush the authority to invade Iraq when the public opinion was in favor but now wants to cut and run when the public has turned against the war, thereby betraying those who have already fallen in this battle?

[campgranata]

you are correct, McCain would not handle her so gently. She has baggage that has not even been mentioned but essentially she never should have gotten so far on her husband's credentials.

[ginsburg]

Obama is going to have a tough time when they accuse him of appeasment since his latest effort at appeasing those who wanted him to quit the church caused a shock wave in my conservative friends. If you say this church is important to you for the past 20 years then out of political expediency you leave that church because your are told it is an Albatross for you. The independents at my gym just looked at what he did as one more reason not to vote for him.

Obama's negatives keep going up daily. This can harm electability.

Actually what happens at the convention doesn't make much difference to me. I am now a McCain democrat and jproud of it. The only thing that would make me change my mind is if by some strange quirk Hillary got the nomination. There is nothing that anyone can say that can make me change my mind. Obama's behavior and what he says has sealed my vote.

[Plisko]

It's a PERFECT circle for you and your buddies at the gym isn't it? If Obama sticks to his guns he is in league with one of those angry black radicals and he can't be trusted. If he rebukes them and leaves his church then he didn't stand up and fight so he can't be trusted.

I'm glad it works for you all to justify what you wanted to feel all along, but to me it's hogwash.

[Plisko]

By the way, Didn't McCain just throw one of his pastor supporters under the bus too? How can you be a proud McCain Democrat when he won't stand up for himself under pressure either? Unless of course it's just a convenient excuse when it comes to Obama.

[happypup]

Although I disagree with much of Ms. Rosen's statements, she seems to be a voice of reason and moderation. Lets hope she has Hillary's ear.

[McPander]

"Et tu, Brutus?"

[pilotinfla]

Obama has survived the Clintonian "kitchen sink" strategy, Clinton-inspired race-baiting as well as Rush Limbaugh's Operation Choas. No one has really raised issues about Hillary other than the minimal coverage given to her self-induced errors. But Hillary is a divisive figure and her past includes parternships with criminals, "miracle" investment strategies and who knows what else. Does anyone really believe that none of Hillary's negatives would come to life in a general election?

[JCProduces]

Hillary disturbs me. I say let her do everything she feels she needs to do because I really believe what is meant to be is meant to be. In my humble opinion, it is not meant for her to become The President of The United States of America. I give her credit in her desire. I do think she should play fair and chill out with the
fudging.

[MysticMichael]

Hillary has squandered virtually every advantage in this campaign that she once enjoyed - money, name recognition, connections, the Clinton "brand equity" - the works. She has made terrible personnel choices, hiring a bunch of high-strung, overpaid Type A egomaniacs who are apparently more interested in playing office politics than in winning the nomination. She has failed to adequately manage them, failed to adequately supervise campaign finances, failed to even notice the flaws in a deeply flawed, thoroughly outdated campaign strategy, etc. etc.

Not only has Hillary's campaign been an embarrassing failure, but she has by far the consistently highest negative ratings from general election voters of any candidate in recent memory. And on top of all that, she trails Obama in pledged delegates, superdelegates, popular vote, states won, and endorsements. Yet somehow we're supposed to buy the argument that Hillary is actually the "superior" candidate? The only Democrat who can defeat McCain in November? On the basis of what? Where's the evidence?

If she did not resort to insulting our collective intelligence, Hillary would have no campaign strategy whatsoever­...

[mheister]

The electability argument based on current polling has been historically shown to be weak and wrong-headed. In '04 the Democrats had their idealistic candidate (Edwards) and their "realistic" candidate (Kerry), the one everyone thought could win. The party put the two together with the realistic candidate on top, and to flip your phrase, made chickenshit out of chicken salad.

After Tuesday, Senator Clinton will have made her case. A clear majority of delegates selected through the primary/ca­ucus/Texas­-two-step have gone for Senator Obama. A clear majority of all of the Democrats participating in this process have chosen Senator Obama (Senator Clinton's math is tortured beyond recognition - don't count caucus states, do count Michigan votes even though Obama wasn't on the ballot and don't count a single "undecided" vote for Obama....)­.

At this point, Senator Clinton is not in this for the best interests of the republic, but what she perceives to be the best interests of Senator Clinton. She showed poor judgment as the CEO of her campaign, squandering the kind of name recognition typically only enjoyed by an incumbent president and a warchest outstripping any primary candidate in history (until Obama caught fire and flew past her). She also failed on the vision thing. Just about every well-run company has a clear mission statement BEFORE designing the product and putting it before buyers. Her mission statement her entitlement to the nomination, and she didn't change that until she'd already lost the nomination.

[in4success]

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

you know -- like the one you made defending your decision to give g.w. bush the authority to pre-emotively invade a sovereign country for war profit, oil and the will of the AIPAC lobby.

yeah! you go you "great leader" girl you! WOOHOO!!! no blood on your hands...

ick

[EspressoAtNoon]

Let's envision Hillary Clinton on a tennis court playing US Open?

The referee calls point, set, and match Obama. Obama rejoices after his long hard-fought contest. Hillary Clinton, who screamed at every call and whined and threw her racket at one point, approaches the net where Obama awaits her.

She reaches out as if to shake his hand, but instead spits in his face. She screams "I've been cheated! The referrees are clearly sexists!! She storms off the court, leaving Obama there.

As the US Open officials come down and hand Obama his trophy he takes the mic and says the most flattering things about Hillary Clinton, that she fought an honest and impressive match. The mic gets handed to Clinton and she says "this has been unfair! I've been mistreated by the referees! Obama NEVER would have beaten me if he wasn't black. He wouldn't even be playing the U.S. Open if he weren't black!" She storms out of the stadium and her angry fans leave their chairs and leave the stadium as well.

[cjets]

If you're gonna use the U.S. Open as an analogy, then let's get the analogy correct, OK? Senator Obama has not won the nomination as of yet. He is leading in a close race and expected to win. If we use your analogy, then the open match would be tied 2 sets each, with Obama leading 5 games to 1 in the deciding match. Or something like that. Why should she give up? The match isn't over.

And, another point, for all Obama supporters. Some of you understand that the democrats need to unite to beat McCain.

But for the rest of you, stop with the vitriol. What would you rather do? Win the election or keep insulting HRC and her supporters? Do you think insulting and belittling Clinton supporters will help woo them over to Obama's side? And your constant harping on both of them is just ridiculous It is remiscent of what the republicans did to Bill in the 1990's.. Bill Clinton was a bad president?!? Really?!? We had eight years of peace and prosperity with him.

I'm disappointed with some of the mistakes that HRC made in the campaign. I also think that other comments have been blown way of proportion (Stating historical fact should not be villified). She and Bill are not racists, corrupt or otherwise bad people. Follow the lead of your candidate and welcome back in the Clinton supporters.

And remember who the real enemies are: The Republicans.

[CAPol]

cjets..... Well stated reply. The Obamaites want to call it "game over" when the last game hasn't been played. The "delegates" will not have made up their minds until they VOTE at the convention. There are dozens of instances in the history of this country when the "favorite" was removed for good political reasons at the CONVENTION. That's what the convention is for, to bring about a consensus within the party by, promises, arm twisting, and power plays. How many of you REALLY want Pelosi and Reid as our leaders in the Congress in 2009?

[richcpl]

Since when did daily polling results become a criterion in the Democratic Party nominating rules?

Your argument, a familiar one by now in the ever-shifting lazy susan of clinton arguments for staying in, amounts to transitory poll readings. Then how about base the decision on the trend of hillary's approval ratings over the past, say, six months? Or how about we wait to see what the Rasmussen or Gallup poll says on, say, the first day of the convention? Or at 3 p.m. next Thursday?

Polls, as you know, are snapshots. Moreover, the day hillary drops out, Obama will get a bounce in the polls as it officially becomes a two-person race and his stature increases that much more.

The fact is, she's lost the battle of votes for delegates. That's the only poll that matters.

[lauraq]

How ironic that Hillary uses the 141,000+ vote differential from Puerto Rico--whose people cannot vote in the general election--and ignores the potential votes for Obama from Michigan and the caucus states who CAN vote in November!!!

[happypup]

Exactly!