Not Until the Fat Lady Sings

As an ardent Obama supporter, I am calling on the Senator from New York to stay in the race for as long as she can stand it. Longer even. I think the calls for her withdrawal are deeply troubling, and even hysterical. Anti-democratic even. This is how an election works. And even though this particular one seems to be poorly designed at best, we are in the midst of the process. Voting: A right, may I remind Mr. Leahy, et al -- for which people have fought hard and died.

Let me be clear: I believe that the Clinton campaign has been simply tragic. It is an object lesson in failed promise and panicked, unstable, virulent war-game tactics. It has been marked by shallowness of the first order, and by the relentlessly divisive behavior of a cynical staff. She is fatally compromised in her stature as a credible voice, even perhaps in the senate, and her husband, an ex-president of the United States, is in danger of squandering what is left of his tattered reputation. The utter absence of statesmanship from the Clintons actually is painful to watch. There are lies about being under fire, there are semi-secret conduits to Matt Drudge, there are methods worthy of the Nixon playbook, in terms of sheer cynical zero-sum brinksmanship. There is an endless contempt for Obama's brilliant oratory, his ability to speak to adults like adults, which makes the Clintons suddenly seem like Bushesque boors, frankly. The sneering at his ability to connect reeks of school yard pique. It need not have been this way. There were early signs of a different kind of race, and they evaporated a long time ago. One day, we may live to see such a race. I doubt it.

However, I utterly disagree with those who cynically are calling for her to go quietly into the good night. I think that would be deadly for the fragile unity of the party, a party that should be on the brink of reclaiming control of the White House, and all that goes with it. A huge percentage of Clinton believers would be turned off. I think any Democrat alive knows what it is like to feel disenfranchised after the chaos of the last few elections.

And as any reader of the Huffington Post knows, she has fervent and patriotic supporters. (They will be writing angry letters even before they finish reading these words.) Supporters who still see more of what's good and great about her, who see her brilliance, her stamina, her staggering capacity for survival, as purely admirable, and even vital to whomever is going to be our next chief executive. I do not disagree with the need for a powerhouse in the Oval Office, I just think we need the purging energy of Barack Obama more. Senator Clinton has people who believe in her just as passionately as I believe in Senator Obama. Those supporters deserve to see their nominee fight for as long as she can, as long as she needs to. Well past the point of reasonable hope. That is America. It's in our sports, it's in our business, it's in our blood. And frankly, there is something admirable about the indefatigable Clinton appetite for power. I find it morally vacuous, not to mention shallow as hell when Bill remarks that if you can't take the hits, you shouldn't run. Really, Bill? Did you love your ongoing and disgusting hazing at the hands of right wing zealots so much that you think those tactics are a reasonable litmus test for the presidency, rather than say, oh, profound and inspirational moral force and an utterly unifying presence? Just asking. And as stomach turning as is the new college campus mini-trend of questioning of the Clinton's daughter about Ms. Lewinsky, well, so long as the Clintons are willing to put her out there to play that particular game of tennis, well then, who are we to stop 'em? Go. Go. Go. Go to town.

Maybe there's something purging about it for them. More than anything else, for purely selfish reasons, I do not, for one, think this race should end until William Jefferson Clinton is asked, and exhaustively and comprehensively answers each and every last question pertaining to the unconscionable pardoning of the crooked financier Marc Rich. Because, he too will be in the White House again, powerful, cynical, and hungry. Who knows what favors would be traded in exchange for God only knows what?

No, Hillary should remain in the race. As Frank Rich pointed out last Sunday, she knowingly fabricated the details of her landing in Bosnia, and she did so repeatedly, shamelessly, even after she was entirely revealed as a fabulator worthy of the hoariest backlot Hollywood schlockmeister. So -- Let it go on and on and on and on. The truth, as it did in the case of her trip to the "war zone", will come out. It always does. the last aria has not been sung, and the Valkyrie has yet to exhaust her lungs. And as the race continues to the bitterest end, I hope that Senator Clinton's many supporters are entirely satisfied that she did this to herself. That she exhausted her every chance.

It could have been different. As I have said before, character is fate, and that is what we are witnessing, as her campaign falters. Let it go on until all hope is exhausted. Those of us who look at the Clintons and see the full dimensions of the failure of their promise to America will also feel some sense of loss when she withdraws. She shied away from greatness, so as to hold on to power. Character is fate.

Comments

[Cycle]

As a Democrat, I hope that both candidates stay in the race until the end of the primary season--as long as they don't knee-cap each other while complimenting John McCain. One of the benefits of the close race is that people are turning out in high numbers to register and vote----as Democrats. Whoever gets the nomination will benefit from this.

[kroses98]

It's too late! She already has "knee-capped" him, one too many times, which has weakened him, even though he is stronger than her! Her knee-capping, and throwing the "kitchen sink" at him, has lost her the support of so many people, that they want to be rid of her, and that any of Obama's supporters would NEVER in a million years, EVER support her!!! Her viciousness has destroyed any of her chances permanently!!!

[justobserve]

It had come to the point of no return for me once she started to knee-capping him by praising McCain over her fellow democrat. There is no excuse whatsoever for what she did: she doesn't care about the party, only for herself. Why is the party still argueing about how to accommodate her when what they should do now is kick her out of the party and let her and her husband form a party of their own to satisfy their own ego.

[Herrington]

Well that was mean Baitz. I have never had any particular respect for the Clintons, they sold us out without so much as a by your leave with free trade, welfare reform and banking de-regulation, oh and expanding the work visa program put that eventually put about 2 million American tech workers out of a job. But I do not want to see them hoist on their own petard. I think it would demoralize their fans so much that they would lose faith in participatory democracy.

Much better to leave in a graceful concession, explaining that the race is run and there is no more point in spending their supporters valuable time, energy and money on a race that has been decided and has started to split the party. They should express their gratitude to their supporters and vow to uphold the honor with which they have been bestowed in being the first runner up by redoubling their efforts in the Senate and on charitable works. And, to express their hope that these same supporters would acknowledge the majority opinion, slim as it has been, and back the Democratic candidate for the Presidency with as much fervor as they have brought to the Clinton campaign. That would be a legacy, that in the darkest hour, they chose the highest path.

[condew]

That is not enough. They must publicly acknowledge that the race has been fair and that Obama is the legitimate winner. Otherwise, their supporters will not find their way out of the fantasy world that Clinton has spun before the November election.

[Amminadab]

Can we please wait for Obama to actually win before they must acknowledge him as the legitimate winner?

[Smokestack]

You are exactly right, excellent post.
However, I don't think the Clintons have enough class to ever acknowledge that the process has been fair, that caucuses are fine (Bill never complained about them when he ran in them - and won) and that the real problem is that people simply preferred Obama. The idea that the nominee is illegitimate can only come from the Clintons. This assertion of theirs damages the party and sets the Dems up for defeat in November if they continue to spew it.

[lapinbrim]

Part I

must take exception to one of your points, that 2 million tech workers lost jobs because of work visas. I've been a manager at tech companies for the past 10 years. During part of that time (2000 to 2005) I had to build a Technical Services organization that, at its peak, employed 50+ people.

When I was looking for qualified talent I desperately wanted to hire US citizens and resident aliens. The dearth of these applicants was astounding, even in the painfully lean years of 2002 to 2005.

I don't know what the overall stats are but anecdotally, I did not see any evidence of US workers losing out to individuals from China and India. US students are not going into engineering schools in sufficient numbers to meet our needs. That is the primary reason employers are seeking to increase the number of H1B visas. T

hat said, when one of my children told me they wanted to because an engineer (like their dad) my heart sank because it is clear that most of these jobs will be filled overseas for the foreseeable future. Off shoring jobs is what is killing tech workers, not H1B workers.

[JasonEverettMiller]

Engineers aren't tech workers.

When you combine off-shoring with H1B visas, that is the death sentence for tech workers in the states. If we are going to off-shore tech support, then the actual face-to-face development and client relations jobs need to go to American citizens first. If there isn't qualified individuals, then we should train them.

Our entire system needs to be re-examined for common sense, common good and fuck those lucky few at the top who can't seem to figure out that their privilege brings with it responsibilities to their fellow Americans. Which starts with not sending all of our middle class jobs overseas to save 10-percent in revenue or whatever their lame ass justification for greed is.

[Herrington]

lapinbrim, I was a founder at Symantec, Visicorp (Visicalc) and a staff engineer at Apple Computer. I have seen the tech industry grow from the ground up. 2 million is actually probably low, because that number is 6 years old already. And, it was the number of H1B visa holders in the country in 2002.

Wages for engineers and technicians have been cut in half since 1999. The current duration of a tech career is 10 years as opposed to an expectation of 30 or more in the 1980s.

If you were not seening any resumes it is because they were screened out before they got to you. Microsoft gets 10,000 resumes a day and their HR department eats all that do not meet a specific profile of age, education and salary. Microsoft prefers H1B visa holders because they will work for less, period. Other companies have followed suit, not all, but so many that it the exceptions are insignificant in number.

[monsieurjac]

It'll all be over when Roseanne sings "Let's Stop Thinking About Tomorrow"

[Titonwan]

That's too funny:) You make that up? LOL

[LeanLeftAmerica]

Jon, you are absolutely right... I wrote this reply without finishing your thinly veiled contempt for a political team that we owed (past tense) how many billions in past surpluses? What was the deficit they inherited?
On another note, who spoke to the American people like adults? Oh ya, Kerry and Gore tried that once. Talking to the American people like they could actually understand a slightly nuanced thought went over so well for them.
Bush talked to the American people as though they were a bunch of children, and guess what, he won. Twice.
Then you come along with your brilliant observations... the Clintons have sunk so low. How sad that they (the Clintons) might ponder a scenario in which America votes like a bunch of half wits? That George Bush Junior would pass up the intelligent, mindful, even ethical discourse we got from Kerry/Gore and go with a strategy that has been proven tried and true straight out of the GOP handbook. What lesson might someone take away from the experience? A lesson that seems to have utterly passed you by. Oh ya, George Bush's baby talk actually did the job.
No surprise the Clintons are hedging their bets. And you my friend are writing at the same level that appealed to the Bush voters... nothing more than twisted logic designed to appeal to the masses... you are far more Clintonlike than you realise.

[Zipperupus]

The above post is misanthropy.

[superba]

Very foolish post. Bush never even won once, as it happens.

[Azdak]

I don't care if Clinton stays or goes, but I don't buy the idea of "failed promise". This campaign has revealed Clinton . You act as though this:

panicked, unstable, virulent war-game tactics. It has been marked by shallowness of the first order, and by the relentlessly divisive behavior of a cynical staff.

somehow happened by accident, or was something outside of her control. The Clinton campaign has been emblematic of the Clinton character.

[DinSea]

RIGHT ON.

Remember the story of the frog & the scorpion? In order to get a ride across the pond, the scorpion sweet talks the frog into letting him ride on his back. Half-way across, the scorpion stings the frog and they both drown. On the way down, the frog asks why the scorpion would deceive his old friend, and especially why he would destroy himself as well .... just didn't make sense!

The scorpion answers: "I can't help it - it's my nature"

BTW ... HRC has 5 planets in Scorpio. Look it up - the shoe fits perfectly.

[radlib1]

Dear DinSea,

I can't vouch for your astrology, but the story of the frog and the scorpion -- a perfect analogy for Hillary. She can't help herself. She must kill even those who would save her.

So smart, so astute, so unbelievably stupid and self-destructive. And that's not even counting her Vote for the War on Iraq, where she put the power of America into the hands of a moron, George W. Bush, who proceeded to kill over 4000 Americans, over a million Iraqis, and waste over 3 trillion dollars. Way to go, Hillary. So bright, such a moral wasteland.

[OverIt]

And that is why Obama would be a FOOL to pick this woman as VP. Wolf Blitzer keeps pushing the idea of a "dream" ticket because he asked a stupid question at the L.A. debate. For me it would be a NIGHTMARE. With Clinton as VP, Obama would not finish a first, much less a second term. In that scenario, I could see her framing him and then feeding the evidence to the press to bring about his impeachment. Obama-Clinton is a non-starter for me.

[OverIt]

Unbeknownst to me, Kiki McClean must be a woman of many talents!

[klondiker]

(cont'd)

This is a standard that no human being can live up to. You DO govern in prose. You have to govern from the center. If Barack Obama does get elected, he'll never be able to deliver everything that you're pinning their hopes on; it's just not possible. And, no amount of "Yes, We Can" will change that.

We've been through this before. I hear the same comments about Obama today that I did about Clinton back in 92. The same kind of people that are fawning over Obama today - young, upscale, liberals - fawned over Clinton, as the start of a new kind of politics. And, we were disappointed. Not because the Clintons are bad people, but because in the political system, it's just not possible to be this kind of biblical figure. They didn't turn corrupt; they just become realists.

And, maybe that's why I support Sen. Clinton - it's because she is firmly rooted in reality. And, I KNOW that Obama will get there too. Not because he'll "sell out" but because he'll realize that sometimes you need to lose a battle to win the war; that politics is compromise; that people aren't looking to the government for spiritual renewal.

Gail Collins put it best:

"How could you be 21 and not be for Barack Obama?

How could you be 53 and not wonder how this relative stranger will hold up when the disasters arrive, when things get truly nasty and the crowd starts seeing him

[Azdak]

I don't know--I am 54 and I think he has shown he will do just fine.

And--a candidate who was "grounded in reality" might have spent a little time planning in case the campaign went past Feb 5.

[DinSea]

And I am 50+ ... have you noticed that Obama has already had a huge impact on the thinking and behavior of our nation? So many people are asking "How would Barack Obama handle this?" ... and reaching for their (higher) better self.

In contrast, the Clintons are teaching people how to fight.

It's really an easy puzzle to solve -- if people are not into FEAR.

[ChiGuy]

If Obama is a "relative stranger" to you, either you simply have not done as much research as you should, or you choose to ignore the information available.

While somewhat "new" on the national front, between the Senate and the Illinois legislature, he has held elective office for 11 years. He has served the citizenry of this country longer than Hillary.
You seem informed, so I'd be willing to bet that you knew that, which renders your dismissive reference to Obama, false.

Hillary's "advantage" of having more years in the public eye (which I assume is why you refer to Obama as a stranger) would be great, had it been in service to her country as long as Obama's has been, or had it been in as effective a role as Obama's time spent has been.

It was neither.

continued...

[klondiker]

Perhaps you missed it, but the "relative stranger" is from Gail Collins's quote. I made it clear that it was her words and not mine.

[RButler]

After his speech at the 2004 convention, Obama was invisible on the national scene until he started campaigning last year. What leadership did he show in the Senate for those 2 years that demonstrated leadership qualities?

[ChiGuy]

Continued...

I think I would be safe in assuming that you found JFK and MLK inspirational.
Able to inspire ordinary people to do extraordinary things.

That you feel it necessary to denigrate the inspirational capabilities of Obama with terms like "cult" and "messiah" speaks to your need to diminish him, and these are your terms du jour. It also is a direct insult, cast at those of us that have thought very long and hard about whom we would support and why.

Willingness to do whatever it takes to get elected (Read: "Kitchen sink") regardless of the etiquette or harmful consequences, is not a very inspirational attribute.

I'll put my faith in a strong, decent, confident man like Barack Obama, over someone that campaigns by the scorched earth method.

We've had 7+ years of a president that has run roughshod over people. I'm not in the mood for more from Hillary.

[klondiker]

I don't think I used the word "cult" anywhere. Please don't put words in my mouth.

[klondiker]

That's the thing - MLK was not a candidate for president. He truly was a messianic figure who spiritually renewed our country and inspired millions.

The job of the government is not spiritual renewal. It's a lovely thought. But, I want my government to be in the solutions business - health care, economy, roads, bridges, defense, education.

I can choose whatever spiritual models I want for myself.

[c1ee]

At the beginning of this democratic primary, I was telling everyone the difference between Clinton and Obama was this. Clinton is low risk, but low reward. Obama is higher risk, but a vast potential for higher reward.

But now, i won't give Clinton credit even for that. She has shown, through her management of her campaign, that Obama has her bested even in her trumpeted management, hands-on skills. It is her campaign that is blowing budgets, racking up needless costs and demonstrating inefficient management.

You say she is a sure hand, but i can see through this campaign that it is really her who is "all hat, no cattle". Obama was a professor of constitutional law at Chicago University. President of Harvard Law Review. Graduated first in his class at Harvard Law School. If you know anything about high achivement, that record is the top of the top of high achievement.

What does Hillary have to match that? No honours in her Princeton Law degree. Failed the Bar exam in her first attempt. Now she's caught lying about coming under sniper fire. I'm sorry, but I cannot swallow that argument anymore.

[klondiker]

What kind of an argument is that?? Being top of the class at Harvard Law (which, by the way, I don't think he was) does not make one qualified to be president. There are hundreds of professors across America who have stunning academic credentials - that does not make them qualified for the presidency.

And, check your facts. Sen. Clinton didn't attend Princeton Law.

[condew]

"...Not because the Clintons are bad people, but because in the political system..."

No, we are disappointed because Bill Clinton couldn't keep is pants zipped, and Obama could easily do much better..

[klondiker]

When will you get over the BJ?

[klondiker]

(I really admire your attempt to provide balanced commentary, despite being an Obama supporter.)

When I read articles like these by Obama supporters, I can't help but feel partially sorry because I think that you are setting yourself up for disappointment. You have drawn a narrative in your mind that casts Barack Obama as the noble savior. You speak of him like he is a messiah. Like he is what is needed to "purge" all of our ills (your word, not mine).

The American people are in the market for a political leader; not a messiah. It is disingenuous to say that Obama will transcend politics. We don't need our president to transcend politics. We have public icons and spiritual leaders to do that for us.

You can call me a pessimist, but I have always been wary of politicians promising to deliver messianic change. We don't need messianic change. We need smart, sharp, astute solutions for real-life issues.

[ChiGuy]

"...I have always been wary of politicians promising to deliver messianic change."
******************************************************************

The whole cult/messiah meme has gotten old as hell.

How about providing direct quotes by Obama making these alleged "promises".

[klondiker]

I think you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I think we both know the tone in which Obama has run his campaign. If you haven't heard him make promises for messianic change, you probably haven't heard him speak at all.

I don't have the time or the energy to provide direct quotes. Look the Iowa caucus night speech. Look at the JJ Dinner Speech. He firmly places his campaign in the tradition of Great Events (the Iowa win was "this defining moment of history") like the Declaration of Independence, Emancipation, civil rights movement. Does that not strike you as someone promising messianic change? Does that not strike you as someone promising messianic change?

[rudyinbama]

Actually, Obama is currently abandoning his18th century speechifying and campaigning Hillary-style for the Pennsylvania blue collar vote.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/us/politics/01obama.html

[Marioth]

It's not messianic. He's a constitutional law professor, not a priest.

The promise is not salvation. The call is to hold him by a standard, through his nature, that his predecessors scoffed, and I believe they will pay the price after they leave office. Impeachment is for politics. War crimes are for criminals. It was a HUGE mistake to piss of the judiciary.

It's the restoration of the rule of law. It's not a religeon. It's our form of government. It's been so twisted and bent, I realize it may be unrecognizable. This is the promise, and it requires no starry eyes nor bended knee to comprehend and fundamentally GET.

As for risking disappointment, this is one definition of the audicity of hope. I am an adult. I think I'll weather my own disappointment. One cannot be a long-term political junkie otherwise.

Pax,
M,

[AreYouFibbing]

Klondiker....you don't have to go back to far....think GWB.

[klondiker]

Exactly.

[Zipperupus]

You are projecting.

Obama supporters do not view him as a savior. Saviors take all of the world's problems upon themselves. Saviors are benevolent dicators.

Obama has formed a largely grassroots campaign that advocates civic virtue and activism. This is what is known as "democracy." There is nothing messianic about telling people that they are the change they seek... he is actually telling people to think for themselves. He is telling them to get their head out of the doldrums and push for reform. He is running for office based upon serving the PUBLIC WELFARE.

I would venture that it is Hillary that is running the messianic campaign. It is about her, her experience, her fighting spirit, her promises to defeat the forces of neo-conservatism singlehandedly. She is the cult of personality, not Obama.

I think the smartest, most astute solution for real life issues is civic activism. Participate, vote, and serve the country and make it better for your children and your children's children. I think the dumbest solution is to vote Hillary! in the belief that she is a progfessive warrior-maiden.

[Fabienne]

Zipperupus, great comment: "I think the smartest, most astute solution for real life issues is civic activism. Participate, vote, and serve the country and make it better for your children and your children's children." This is exactly what Senator Obama asks us to do.

[jteschke]

Actually, the Clintons, by stating they prefer McCain to Obama, and not apologising for their role in furthering the criminal war in Iraq are becoming a sort of anti-party group. That's why even certain most white men don't much like the Clintons. Actually, the feminism is a bit false as well because the recent campaign shows that it's a family affair, more like the derivative Peron campaign in 50s Argentina; they are only cynically using feminism as another arrow in the entitlement quiver.
I agree with the commentator that it is better that she doesn't quit too soon. It appears to me that the next several weeks will be unkind to their campaign; the lies about Bosnia will lead to the further exposure of her other lies, such as her claim to have been a closet opponent of NAFTA, an opponent of offshoring when she went to India to schmooze with companies involved in carrying forward that process, and the chief negotiator of the Ulster solution to the "troubles" of 1998.

[Amminadab]

The Clintons have never stated that they prefer McCain to Obama.

That is a lie.

Hillary said that McCain had experience to be president, Bill said that John McCain loves America.

Neither mentioned Obama.

Obama himself has said that McCain has the experience and loves America, so what is the problem?

Now that you have been informed of the lie, please cease from repeating it.

[graffen48]

The question is , why would Hillary even say that??? Sounds like she's campaigning for McCain. This whole "experience" thing is a wash. Typical fear politics at work, I think it was Nixon who started that experience thing. What a great president he was!!

[BitJam]

You are mistaken. Hillary Clinton did compare McCain and Obama directly at least twice.

She said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that I have a lifetime of experience that I will bring to the White House. I know Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience to the White House. And Senator Obama has a speech he gave in 2002.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

She also said:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I think that since we now know Sen. (John) McCain will be the nominee for the Republican Party, national security will be front and center in this election. We all know that. And I think it’s imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the commander-in-chief threshold, I believe that I've done that. Certainly, Sen. McCain has done that and you’ll have to ask Sen. Obama with respect to his candidacy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This was the reason Nancy Pelosi said that a dream ticket with both Obama and Clinton on it is impossible.

[stringer]

Because she insinuated that she and John McCain had the experience to be president and all Barack Obama had was a speech. Besides denigrating the fact that he stood up against a war that killed 4,000 people BEFORE it started (let me guess "just words" and you don't care) also terribly underestimates his record.

We've repeated his accomplishments on sites like this and others ad nauseum. Yet Clinton supporters refuse to even research his accomplishments. When she claims accomplishments we research them and guess what we find? They're often not true like landing under sniper fire in Bosnia.

When you began kneecapping someone else in your party and helping the other party's candidate you've went too far. She knows it which is why she stopped doing it. As someone put it the other day any of us could make a murder-suicide pact we just choose not to. Hillary Clinton however apparently has no such qualms.

[jstock]

Hillary said (and this couldn't have been over a month ago) that she has a "lifetime of experience" as did McCain, and Obama had "a speech he made back in 2002." If that's not implicitly saying that McCain is better qualified than Obama, I don't know what would be. I'm sure that it must hurt her and Bill to be where they find themselves, but this kind of talk is beyond the pale.

[SouthCentralDel]

The Clintons use implication as a staple of their stump speeches. I can't explain this to you if you haven't seen it like hundreds of millions already.

To go he-said-she-said is getting a bit juvenile at this point so I just can't go there again.

[Caringthinkingperson]

It has been so sad to see Senator Clinton's character be so closely aligned with the most desparaging aspects of her husband's presidency. At first there was the glimpse of hope that maybe in her accomodating marriage she had held on to a difficult situation in order to come forward later with a higher consciousness. That has been the role of the many older women who identify with her so strongly - subjegating your own personal future for the sake of the marriage. What is lost in the heated emotion of the argument is that if you swallow your pride long enough, you don't know what it looks like. The personal anger at the heart of the most ardent Clinton supporters is from a sacrifice that they were expected to perform from childhood, and expected to break out of as adults. There was no model, and not all of them made their own way. They are literally living it through HIllary. After a lifetime of not living out their dreams they have to watch the actualization of their dreams die - publicly. As a middle-aged woman who has not sacrificed her goals for anyone it is my perogative to make this sad assessment in addition to yours. What is difficult is that we are all going to have to live through the anger, denial, acceptance - the whole nine yards - before the majority of my sisters see their way clear to their actual self interests.

[ltfHusseincrazy]

Thank you for that. I could never understand why you all supported her so strongly. I never saw that she had the character to be president and I still don't, but now I understand why you do. Thank you.

[Caringthinkingperson]

ItfHusseincrazy - I never thought she had the character, I was just willing to leave her the room to show that she had some. Sadly, there isn't that much room. I do think you have to understand those who support her in order to help them get over it. Arguing only gets people more firmly entrenched in their own fears.

[donaldw6]

Hillary Clinton's has been a historic candidacy for all women, and many of her supporters haven't just been supporting any candidate, but a woman, come at last to bring some sense of vindication for the whole of her sex. With such a place in history, it adds to my frustration -- and I can only imagine how it adds to yours -- that Hillary has not really been the worthy standard bearer you deserve. I think it's been difficult for many women to defend her tortured delegate logic, to excuse her lack of transparency with documents and tax returns, to rationalize her votes on Iraq and Iran, and to justify her failure to take a stand against truly low-grade attacks on her opponent's race, religion and patriotism. You wanted to focus on her health care and economic policies, but that didn't seem to be her focus. You wanted a woman whose character and standards made you proud, and you kept trying to find that in Hillary. But it's not there.

I'm not trying to pour salt in the wound, though I may have done so. You've begun to express some of what it has been to be a Hillary supporter, and how it may feel to let her go. I've responded with a somewhat harsh, but empathetic attempt to say we may not act like it, but we really do understand just a little, and to some extent our anger with Hillary Clinton is for you.

[Mesaywar]

Wow, Caringthinkingperson, I've just added you to my list of people who have shed a profound light on this race, and situation for me. The last one before you was David Sirota. Thank you, much.

[S1m0n]

I've been hoping for a month that for her sake and for America, I hope that Hillary can find the same freedom Al Gore found, once he had gone past the bitterness of defeat.

Losing the presidency was the end of a dream, but it gave Al Gore His 'self' back.

[Aleka]

I think this is a thoughtful, considered piece, but I think you are being far too generous. I'd like to think she could be graceful and have a last, dignified hurrah - but she seems unable to grasp that she - and her surrogates now praising Fox News! - need to learn some grace and teamwork. Even now, they are busy putting the spin on the realities of how these contest work, and trying to change the rules after the race is lost.

I am not sure it will make any difference to her supporters even if she stays right to the convention. She - and her goalpost changing surrogates - have basically spun what the contest is about SO badly that her followers no longer know what is valid and actual, and are now convinced that if Obama takes his (soon to be) fairly won nomination, that he is "stealing the election". They will not be getting over that no matter when she drops out. Also, she keeps repeating the outright falsehood/smear that he alone is responsible for MI and FL not being seated. Both these things will impact badly in Nov and I find this reprehensible in a losing candidate.

[MinuteMan]

You can get an em-dash in HTML by typing in ampersand mdash semicolon using the real symbols for ampersand and semicolon; also there are no spaces between the three parts.

[Mesaywar]

And with this post, Aleka, you have hit the nail so squarely on its proverbial head, you should be president of the carpenters' union.

Senator Clinton knows she cannot win this thing "fairly," if at all.

However, she can confuse the issues enough so that those well meaning, though uninformed, people among her supporters are so personally offended when she does finally run out of field, and collapses as she's dragging the goal posts out of the stadium into the parking lot, nothing will persuade them to support Obama or the Democratic party.

Any "support my opponent, Obama" speech will be looked upon as "well, she had to do it" (which it will be), and that will just drive that stake of resentment more deeply into their hearts. By her actions, Clinton has already forced a Rovian draw; she cannot win, but unfortunately at the this point, neither can Obama.

[dadele]

Unfortunately, you are right about character being fate and about the Clintons needing to hang on until every bit of respect we all had for them is gone. It's a shame to watch people waste, first their 8 years in the White House and now their standing in the country.

[Gma11]

"It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities."

Dumbledore, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets

[Amminadab]

You consider 8 years of peace and prosperity for all to be a waste?

Curious!

[fairamerican]

C'mon Amminadab -

don't you remember how Clinton squandered his political capital and the democratic agenda because he couldn't stop himself from having an affair in the WH and then lying about it?

don't you remember the impeachment proceedings that tore this country apart and stopped us from address real problems. (you can blame this on the republicans but NOBODY made Bill do it and then NOBODY made him lie about it afterwards)

[dadele]

The 96 election was a landslide for Clinton, but instead of being able to do big things for the country, he spent four years dealing with his personal and legal issues. Accomplishing almost nothing, but retaining his job. I don't want to go back.

[Mesaywar]

Pardon me, but is Bill Clinton running for president again?

The more I listen to Hillary Clinton supporters, the more I get the unsettling feeling that an unhealthy percentage of them really believe that they're fighting for Bill's third term as president.

What's even scarier, is that they might be right.

[bluevillage]

Why can't the Dems just move the convention up to June? Is there some rule against changing the date?

[feelfree]

Wow you did a really great job of furthering my belief that Obama brings out the worst in people. Every word just reinforces the belief that he would not be good for the country. Great leaders like MLK Jr. brought out the BEST in their supporters. He made people believe and feel hope. It showed in their actions and in their words. I have yet to read a single article by an Obama supporter that doesn't personally attack Mrs. Clinton. The most personal attacks tend to come from white men. Why is that?

[Aleka]

I am afraid that calling a spade a spade is not ACTUALLY an "attack". If someone lies, it is not an attack to say so. If someone is behaving badly, it is not an attack to say so.

[Amminadab]

Unless that someone lying and behaving badly is Obama. It is not allowed to call Obama on his lies. His lies arent even acknowledged by his supporters, they are always justified and rationalized. Same when he behaves badly. Obama is unaccountable, he is not responsible for anything. Everything is someone else's fault (usually Hillary's)

[ltfHusseincrazy]

You are seeing things. We aren't attacking her, we are telling the truth about her. Is it a "personal attack" if you see someone lie about something important and you point it out before that person is given a ton of power? She's a liar and there's nothing personal about that. In fact it's a personal attack on our collective intelligence for her to think we would believe her lies. So there you have it. Why does Hillary Clinton personally attack me just because I support Obama? Why am I told I am a cult member? A race traitor? A sexist? Why do I get personally attacked constantly? feel free to apologize!

[NorVaGal]

feelfree: How do you know that the blogs you perceive as "personal attacks" tend to come from white men? I'm mystified. Unless a blogger specifically states his or her race ( and gender, in many instances), I'm unable to tell. Would you feel better if the criticisms came from black, latino, or asian women??? White men can vote for whoever they want to, just like the rest of us. Hillary does not have dibs on EVERY voter.

[tersan]

A personal attack is defined here as any subsantive reason not to like Hillary. See, if you keep bringing up that you prefer her challenger, that's a personal attack. Don't you see? Because it's an insult not to like her at all. Stop attacking her!

This is the most base sort of tribalism. In group/ out group. You might as well be a Republican at this point.

OR, here's another option - you could actually focus on promoting the good points of your candidate.

I suspect that the reason this isn't the approach is that Hillary has few positives aside from name recognition.

The woman couldn't inspire rugby players to get drunk.