Hillary's Empty 18 Million Voter Gambit

Tuesday evening marked a historic occasion in what's been a historic campaign. Sixteen grueling months later, it's finally over. Obama did his part on Tuesday, delivering a gracious, yet electrifying and celebratory speech to a crowd of over thirty thousand energized voters in St. Paul, Minnesota.

But Hillary? She petulantly refused to concede, notwithstanding the fact that Obama reached the magic number of delegates. By doing so, she effectively spoiled what should have been a triumphant evening for the Party, initiating a new round of speculation and uncertainty and pissing off legions of voters and high-ranking Democrats in the process.

Why did she do this? Because she wants something, obviously. But what the hell does she want? We still don't know because, although she posed the question to herself in her "victory" speech on Tuesday night, she refused to answer it directly.

Nor is the rumor mill of any real assistance. Earlier this week, the buzz was that Obama was going to offer her a cabinet position and pay off her campaign debts. No word on whether this would be acceptable to her. Then she let it slip that she'd be willing to be Obama's running mate if it would help the party. Meanwhile, Howard Fineman reported on Tuesday night that according to his sources, Hillary only wants to be offered the VP position so that she can refuse it, and that Obama is perfectly willing to offer her the position if he's guaranteed in advance that she won't take it. During the same broadcast, Tim Russert reported that according to his sources, Hillary does want the VP spot and all of her posturing and muscle-flexing of late is to this end. Pundits were quick to pan Hillary for actively campaigning for the VP spot as a major faux-pas, which apparently prompted a Clinton aide to release a statement on Thursday stating that she is not seeking the VP spot, and that this decision is Obama's alone.

Whatever she wants, some of her more vocal supporters have strongly suggested that unless she is appeased, they will not back Obama. They'll vote for McCain, or they'll sit on their hands in November.

Put politely, I have a hard time believing that this threatened scenario will actually come to pass. Of course, there are some die-hard Hillary supporters out there who, as Sam Stein reported a couple of days ago, really feel that Hillary has somehow been unfairly deprived of the nomination because she's a woman. To those people I say two things. One, undoubtedly there are sexist Democrats out there, just as there are racist Democrats. Two, Hillary lost the nomination because she didn't have a plan after Super Tuesday and because Obama beat her soundly on the ground (grassroots organizing, etc), and through the air (inspirational oratory, etc).

There are also women out there who feel that Hillary represented their best chance to have a woman elected president in their lifetime. To those women, I say that I have a daughter, and I too would like to see a woman elected president during my lifetime. But only if she's the right candidate. Although I can't help but be excited at the prospect of this nation's first African-American president, I support Senator Obama because I feel that he's the right candidate, not because he's black. Quite frankly, if a green hermaphrodite appeared on the scene and promised to end the Iraq war, invest a significant portion of the savings in the American people and otherwise make a firm commitment to the development of a hydrogen/electric-powered hovercraft fit for everyday use, I would vote for this person in a heartbeat. How can anyone say no to a candidate on the right side of the hovercraft question?

More to the point, how can any HRC supporter that actually cares about the issues say with a straight face that if Hillary doesn't get what she wants, they're going to either vote for McCain or not vote at all? In terms of their respective positions on the major issues facing this country, Obama and Clinton live on the same block in the same neighborhood, while McCain lives on another planet, some remote, barren world where everyone owns eight houses and 100 year wars are to be encouraged. I would think that anyone who wants the troops out of Iraq, or that doesn't want to pay $4 a gallon for gas, is NOT going to sit on their hands, and is NOT going to vote for McCain/Bush . . .

. . . unless, of course, Obama were to pick another woman as his running mate, without asking Hillary first. Depending on the timing, a slight of this magnitude might really put the Hillary faithful over the edge. If his numbers with white women over 50 don't improve in the next couple of months, Obama just may find himself in the compromising position of having to ask Hillary to serve as VP so she can turn it down, before considering other women VP candidates.

My intent is not to denigrate these voters, but instead to voice my opinion that I just don't think a majority of Hillary's supporters are actually going to forsake Obama in November. I believe that in 2008, the American electorate is too intelligent, too informed, and too pissed off at the Bush administration to either cast some sort of vengeful retaliatory vote for McCain or to abandon the field altogether.

Cross-posted at The Systocrat Papers.

Comments

[dawlishgal]

Check her blog on hillaryclinton.com. -re yesterday's speech. Every comment (up to last night) was about revenge... Her supporters were saying they won't vote for Obama no matter what Hillary says to do. I don't know if it is a matter of a p*ssed off moderator removing positive comments or if negativity there is at 100%, but it is startling to see how they claim to love her, then--in no uncertain terms-- refusing to follow her expressed wishes for party unity.

The Hillary supporters who are unifiers are on the Obama blog. The contrast is stark.

I don't know what this means, but it isn't a good sign for Hillary. Even if these supporters represent a miniscule segment of her "18 million," they are the vocal ones, and with every posting, they come off as more zealous and full of crackpottery, and this is going to reflect on her and her credibility...she can't have it both ways...to publicly express a wish for unity, then have a blog that offers these divisive and hostile people a forum for their recalcitrance and NOTHING ELSE.

Either the positive cooperative supporters don't exist on her blog, or their remarks are being removed by the moderator. Neither alternative is a good one for her because to anybody who reads her blog, it makes her fine speech yesterday seem like just another manipulation....a Lucy move to Obama's Charlie Brown.

[bab23]

Perhaps he should choose the person he thinks would make the best VP candidate and the best VP, regardless of gender, race, or other superfluous attributes, and then defend his choice on the merits come what may. Could be refreshing...you know, like a welcome change of the status quo.

Have we learned nothing from the monstrous display of the past 2 months?

[PTTY]

ROE V. WADE

McBUSH IS PRO CHOICE

Will Appoint VERY CONSERVATIVE JUDGES TO THE SUPREME COURT TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE

If this is what you want please go ahead and VOTE REPUG

[Jamchinadian]

Amen to that! One exception - it's unconscionable that, to add to the insult and indignities of Tuesday night's disgraceful display by HRC, that he should now have to seek permission if he chooses "another woman" for Veep?!

Last time I checked Obama was not married to Clinton. Would Michelle object to "another woman" for Veep?