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

[Knowsbetter]

As usual another round of bash Hillary, Obama, like the anti-christ, has blinded the truth and everyone falls for it! Funny how christians talk about the last days yet cannot see it when it is beggining. Again Obama, like Bush, no military experience, Obama like Bush, will bring the country together, Obama like Bush, no foreign policy experience, Obama like Bush, everyone thinks(thought) he was the choice to have a beer or dinner with, Obama, like Bush, recovering coke-head! The general electorate will not vote for Barack HUSSIEN Obama! The far left hate mongers, dead-heads and farlefties is what is destroying the REAL Democratic Party! Which line of coke was it that Obama found his judgment?

[Dogvane]

Where is the REAL Democratic Party? I've been looking for it for about 8 years now. By the way, you can substitute Hillary for Obama in your post and nothing changes. Kinda like the REAL Democratic Party...

[DueTruthinesss]

Hillary lied to America about her trip to Bosnia.

[bish66]

Clinton exaggerated in her description of the Bosnia trip. Obama lied about Selma, Rezko, Wright. Guess we are even...

[BOBZILLA]

Wow. Obama has gone from being the "Messiah " to the "Anti-Christ". Talk about a swing in the polls!

And I thought we wouldn't see this crap until the Republicans started in.

[pdsimdars]

you mean you don't think that guy was a republican?

[bish66]

Well, isn't he all about Change...?

[BGM1906]

Your comment is a joke. Clinton - No military experience (beyond the obvious snipper fire). Clinton - polarizing figure within our own party, let alone the general populace. Clinton - no hands on foreign policy experience (Do I have to mention Ireland, where she "supposedly" help broker the peace process. This has been refuted). On top of that, I could think of a few people besides a politician that I'd like to have dinner/beer with, so who cares about that one. And the coke head comment is reprehensible. You took a page out of Bob (I'm an idiot) Johnson's book. And using the Hussien middle name makes me think you're with the Fixed News Network. Another GOP plant trying to stir the Clinton/Obama in fighting!

[MsLiz]

It think it ironic that the most ignorant posters have the most self-imporant names.

You start with a complaint about Hillary bashing, and then proceed to defame Obama.
For one, being a Christian is not the same as being a Darbyist. There is no such thing as the Anti-Christ or the Rapture, and if you believe that crap you are probably a Hagee Republican.

For two, any similarities between Bush and Obama are totally meaningless. Where's his trust fund? Who paid for his own schooling through loans and merit scholarships and actually graduated at the top of his class?

For three, occasional adolescent drug use and heavy drug use and full blown alcoholism until age forty are totally different.

But then we get to the truth. You don't like Obama because of his middle name.

[dawlishgal]

"It think it ironic that the most ignorant posters have the most self-imporant names."

LMAO.....I noticed that too.. whatever is said by .anybody whose name mentions "truth" or "knowledge" or any of that kind of highfalootin' stuff, can be instantly and surely recognized as another cheap attempt to bamboozle people. I used to think that praise was something that was properly lavished on people by others than THEMSELVES. Silly me... apparently that no longer holds, and any moron can label himself as a "genius" and any talent-free dimwit can become a "celebrity" just by labeling herself as one.

I used to wait for a bus by a store called, "Friends Family Furniture Store." My college pal who commuted with me and worked at the same place part time used to say, "with a name like that, you can be sure you'll be cheated."

[MacHeath]

It's probably too late to expect anyone networked into the DNC will read this, but someone should get to Chairman Dean and suggest that the best course of action would be for the B and H to sit down and agree on someone they would both want to have in their cabinet. Ideally, they could agree on a Vice President, but even I'm not that naive. How about Chief Economic Advisor or Secretary of Defense? Someone who could then go out and campaign for the Party while allowing the candidates to continue their contest. This would, I think, help the two camps prepare for the rapprochment that we all know must come if we are to secure the Presidency. Without some kind of unifying principle implemented *yesterday* we risk ending up another election as the "should have beens".

[The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker]

Oh looky! The Telegraph is reporting on a high level discussion that took place 2 YEARS AGO! In a Bilderberg Group meeting in Canada:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/30/wuspols130.xml

The Times of London in 1977 called the Bilderbergers "a clique of the richest, economically and politically most powerful and influential men in the Western world, who meet secretly to plan events that later appear just to happen."

Gore 08? Prince Albert, the back pocket Globalist Golden Boy (OK, Green Man), just in case Queen Hillary crashed and burned.

Remember, back in the day Prince Albert was All NAFTA, All the Time.

FWIW, Bloomberg is in their OTHER back pocket. Don't you love how they pick and choose for us? VERY democratic!

[kee]

This is a brilliant article. You sum the Clintons up so well, I almost jumped out of my chair. Thank you for your insight. Yes, indeed, let the race continue! Bravo! Bravo! Bravo!

[BOBZILLA]

(Page 1 of 2)

Hypocrisy on the Grandest Scale

Nothing is as fleeting as a memory in politics unless, of course, it’s expedient to have it otherwise.

I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000. I was (and still am) appalled by the Clinton / Clinton / Gore administration record on many important issues. I also had the impression that Gore was weak when it came to standing strong when it really mattered (his milquetoast response to having an election taken away proved that to be correct).

During, and especially in the 8 years since the election, those who are now whining and bitching about “letting democracy take it’s course” and how “Hillary has every right to run as long as she chooses” were the VERY SAME people who demonized and denigrated Ralph Nader for staying in the race.

It comes down to one of the chief grievances I have with the Clinton’s - An arrogant and condescending belief in entitlement. Just as Democrats in general believed they were entitled to the votes that Ralph Nader received in 2000, Hillary and her supporters also believe that this is “Hillary’s turn” to be president.

As Nader discussed the possibility of running again this year, a great chorus of Democratic conservatives (they call themselves “centrists”) and even progressives wailed at how this could hurt the Party’s chances in the fall.

CONT.

[jotunloki]

Sorry but Ralph's last run for the presidency was almost entirely financed bu republicans - the greens refused to support him. They supported him as just what he was, a spoiler.

[BOBZILLA]

(Page 2 of 2)

A man who never runs on a platform of opposing what your minister may not say is somehow more dangerous than a candidate who seems to have made a second career of generating sound bites for GOP campaign ads.

A man who isn’t interested in whether you simply denounce or if you reject AND denounce the offensive words of others is more of a threat to victory than a candidate who manufactures grand lies, embellishes them when caught and then claims that sleep deprivation clouds her judgment after running a commercial that touts her judgment during crises at 3AM.

A man who HAS consistently opposed NAFTA, who HAS never equivocated in his opposition to the Iraq war and occupation, who HAS a proven track record of siding with individuals versus corporations, who HAS never taken a dime from corporate interests or PACs is apparently more dangerous to the Democratic party than someone who has proven herself to be a corporate shill in a losing effort to have it both ways.

If Hillary wants to continue her ugly and narcissistic quest for what she believes she’s entitled, that’s fine with me. If her supporters think their rationalizations for continuing a doomed campaign are justified, that’s fine also. I just don’t EVER want to hear again about how Ralph Nader and those of us who voted for him cost Democrats the election. You must earn my vote; you hold no title to it.

[MsLiz]

Cut this down to reasonable size, I might read further than the line about Gore"s milquetoast response to the 2000 election (like he could appeal the Supreme Court's decision to God, right?).

[BOBZILLA]

Sorry. I need to realize that bumpersticker slogan size is the preferred length. Why read when you can chant, right?

[rinpochet]

No. But he could have fought the electoral college results in Congress. Instead he ratified the result!!! That's where we believe he showed his lack of courage.

[BillForObama]

HOW DO YOU MEAN?

[maximilyun]

Amen to that brother. Amen. You can't make a person run for President, any more than you can make the stop running. Why on earth people would be suggesting she should stop before she's ready is beyond me. We have to trust the process. If the process fails, we have to fix the process. It failed us once, in 2000 in Florida. Let's hope it doesn't fail us again. As it stands, Obama should be the nominee. If she pulls out a victory, then more power to her. Obama's my man, but I don't want my candidate to win at the expense of someone else's right to vote. That's not democratic. That's no election I want any part of.

[DueTruthinesss]

I do not think people are making the difference between the general election where the constitution guarrantees every citizen's right to vote and the party elections, where nothing is written guarranteeing anyone's right to vote. Parties arose because people discovered it was easier to get a candidate elected if enough supporters of a certain political ethos banded together. Noone is saying Hillary cannot run for president, certain Democratic party leaders are simply saying they do not want her running for president as the Democratic candidate. Just as the DNC barring Michigan and Florida from having delegates is not stopping anyone from those states having their vote cast for president. They are simply saying that rules within the party itself were broken and those chapters are now being punished. If you are mad that you cannot vote for one candidate or the other in these states to represent the Democratic party then either rail against the DNC leadership for backing up the rules both candidates had previously agreed to follow or petition your candidate to run for President under a different party.

[dawlishgal]

THANK YOU! I have been wondering why so few people mention that it is perfectly legitimate for political parties to have RULES. And it is perfectly legitimate for them to throw out the traitorous ingrates who have been given a chance to run for a party's nomination, yet campaign in such a divisive and filthy way that they actually selfishly and destructively endorse the other party's candidate as the default option in case they don't get the nomination.

The Democrtic party has given HC sufficient honor and recognition as candidate for the nomination­....she has betrayed their generosity every step of the way by lying, cheating, and now apparently, stealing from her vendors. This is not a matter of democracy.­..the democracy ought to come in the general election. This is a matter of a party and its members choosing somebody with PRINCIPLES that are supposedly reflect those of the party.

Where are the party leaders with balls enough to tell HC that Democrats don't behave the way she has been behaving? Not if they want to be the party's candidate in November!

[longislandlol]

Obama needs to close the deal in Indiana-- he must explain Wright better to them-- it's the part of the country that is hurting badly by the economy-- and the wright thing has them scared.

[BillForObama]

He has explained it to all of AMERICA and to the world? Wasn't INDIANA listening?

[dawlishgal]

Look at Indiana's record in elections over the past few decades. They rarely listen to anything. I don't want to say it's hopeless, but I have a friend in Bloomington who says it is the only oasis in what is basically a southern state.

[MPeter]

March 31, 2008

Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior



As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying.



The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.



Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.



Why?



“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidenti­ality.”

[afml]

I would suggest that anyone reading this comment google Jerry Zeifman, who I had never heard of before. As with most things, this is not clear cut. I'd suggest linking to http://patterico.com/2008/02/06/jerry-zeifman-hillary-as-i-knew-her-in-1974/ - there are comments there, both pro & con both people which delves into Hillary Clinton's behavior - & Zeifman's - in more depth. For instance, it is unclear that Zeifman could have or even did fire her. And it is unclear if she did do anything unethical.

[Hallucinocynic]

The comments on Patterico regarding Zeifman and Clinton do swing in both directions. And, Zeifman's agenda might be steeped solely in his dislike for Clinton. Certainly, his words indicate that there is little common ground between them. I'll withhold any further personal judgment until I see something more forthcoming.

[cakelady]

Excuse me, who lied and told an interviewer and Huffington post he did not hear the pastors' hate America?
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/AntiObama_video_crafted_by_talk_radio_producer.html

[cakelady]

Bosnia account:Straight Shooting From Tuzla

By LISSA MUSCATINE and MELANNE VERVEER
Published: April 1, 2008

AS staff members who traveled with the first lady, Hillary Rodham Clinton, to Bosnia in March 1996, we have followed with more than passing interest the extensive news coverage of her landing in Tuzla. .
During a week of nonstop coverage, few journalists went beyond the irresistible video footage to ask .... how Mrs. Clinton might have erred in the details about the landing in Tuzla. ......

We flew in a C-17 cargo plane .... precisely because it was capable of steep descents and ascents into and out of areas of conflict. We were issued flak jackets ...and were told the tarmac ceremony might be canceled .... due to sniper fire from the surrounding hillsides. ....

In a recent e-mail message to a British blogger, Ejup Ganic, who was the acting president of Bosnia during Mrs. Clinton"s visit, wrote: "I remember that visit quite well. ...., we still believed that some positions on the hills were occupied by radical Serbs, so I was worried about the overall safety." The planned welcoming ceremony was shortened, he said, but it still lasted a bit longer than expected because a nongovernment group brought along a little girl to sing to Mrs. Clinton.

[Gratitude101]

Per a Washington Post writer on KPCC (the Los Angeles NPR station) last week: of 20,000,000 million primary/caucus votes cast to date, Obama is only ahead by 200,000 votes.

A 1% margin does not a mandate make.

Audacity indeed.

Working the back channel to kill a re-vote in Michigan (despite patrons willing to fund it) and Florida and then suggesting that Hillary should call it quits because a win is numerically impossible.

But based on the NUMBERS, is Obama's clinching of the nomination more numerically possible than hers?

This is not "audacity.­" It is sheer, unadulterated ARROGANCE.

And the mills of the gods grind exceedingly small.

Hillary--run your race.

[OptimusPrime]

Your (KPCC's) numbers are off:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

And the FL/MI situation has been constant--the person trying to change the rules and go back on previous agreements, is Hillary. That's just fact.

Regardless, let's agree that BOTH Democratic candidates are FAR BETTER than scary/crazy John McCain...t­hat man will lead us into Hell.

[davg]

Obama's lead is a little over 700,000, the Washington Post source notwithstanding.

200,000 (or 700,000) votes is indeed a small percentage of the total. But it's late in the game and is probably unbeatable. Think of it like this... In a 26 mile marathon, a 50 foot lead is a small lead. But it's nearly insurmountable if the leader is 200 feet from the finish line and going strong.

Obama has no say in what Michigan and Florida and the DNC rule makers do with regard to elections. Even if his supporters in the state legislatures play politics with this, they are in a minority too small to block anything. "Patrons willing to fund it" is not the same as $$ up front in a trust (who holds the bag should they renege). Should independents be allowed to participate, or should they be "disenfranchised"? Could MI/FL or the DNC be sued by any of the original candidates if there is a redo? Should the states risk paying for a legal defense in such a case? Will the election workers/volunteers step up to the plate pro-bono again? If not, then who? What about those out of state, like in the military? Do you also have to do mail-ins? Elections disrupt business. Should MI/FL go through that again? On and on... It's not like flipping a switch. There's a reason they usually give states a year's notice for elections.

[MsLiz]

How are votes counted at caucuses? Do they actually do a head count, or just count delegates to the mini-conventions?

[DueTruthinesss]

"Working the back channel to kill a re-vote in Michigan (despite patrons willing to fund it) and Florida "

Uh, it's the DNC that killed the re-vote and they should have otherwise why even have rules. As far as patrons willing to fund such a revote, I believe they were all Hillary patrons. Not exactly what I would call a neutral group. Especially since most were super rich contributors to her campaign looking to get cushy ambassadorships and other presidential appointed positions.

Sorry, but your right to vote for a party presidential nominee is not protected by the Constitution. If you don't like the rules of your party, find another one. Or convince your candidate to play by the rules.

[BillForObama]

When did we count Florida and Michigan?

DON'T EVEN TRY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Header]

I agree with Baitz - Clinton should stay in the race. It's good for the Dems to have this type of exposure and whoever gets the nod will be a stronger candidate for it. McCain will implode about September - October and there should be a strong finish by the Democratic candidate.

The Clintons are quite the bunch, but they are effective politicians and I'll support Sen Clinton wholeheartedly if she gets the nominaton - But she won't.

Figure: The successful nominee needs 2,024 votes. The NYT last Sunday put Obama at 1,622.5 (out of country delegates get counted as 1/2) and said there are 369 uncommited superdelegates.

If Obama gets 51% of the remaining delgates in the primaries, he'll need 111 superdelegates to get the nomination. If you read (again, the NYT) what the uncommited superdelegates say about the nominees, it is clear that Obama is the favorite. He's been "discussed" by Al Gore and when Gore publically supports him (remember: Gore doesn't like the Clintons), then it is over.

Say he gets 44% of the remaining voted delegates, he'll still need 153 (~41%) of the remaining uncommitted 369 delegates. He would have to average about 25 - 35% of the vote overall to lose. As he's averaged 52% of the voted delegates (not superdelegates) so far, he has to do as well as he has done in order to win. Her lead is shrinking in Pennsylvania and he'll probably pull out of that with 47% to Clinton's 51%.

[kempis]

"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."

********

Wow. That's a remarkable statement.­...What the hell does it mean?

[shelleybear]

Yes!
She needs to stay in the race!
She needs to exhaust EVERY ounce of her (and "Slick Willy's") credibility.
She has to, becuase if she is thwarted, every one of the 29% of her supporters will vote for McCain, and this country could NOT take that.
Her supporters need to see that she was given the best and fairest chance to succeed.
To any Clinton supporters, I beg you. We will give her the dignity of a fair chance.
Please, if she fails, support the Democratic nominee.

[EdnaEpstein]

You could not be more right... Except some of us saw it long ago...

There is a new video clip on YouTube that does for the NAFTA story what the Bosnia sniper fire did... wonder if the major media will pick it up.

Also... the healing, if it is going to happen, can only happen if she is seen as having exhausted everything and destroyed herself while doing it.

Go girl. GO! You are helping Obama so much and helping us get past the Bush/Clinton?Bush years.

[Zhiroc]

My comment has nothing to do with who is still in the race, or who is leading...­.

Does it come to any wonder why we have such disarray with states wanting to jump the line and vote first? I'm surprised that the 10 states/Puerto Rico left never moved up. People are so concerned about disenfranchisement, yet want the "losers" to exit quickly.

If the problem is that the primary cycle is too long, then shorten it. Make it a month, or whatever, from the first contest. Don't make it sound like a long cycle is good, when it seems to be the last thing people want.

[Hallucinocynic]

You're on the right track. Maybe make the primary season last eight weeks and stage a series of primaries (by lottery or rotation?) every two weeks so that you have a viable candidate with a reasonable amount of time to campaign for the general election.