Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Cranky Wants Your Vote Previous entry: Republicans say: Thanks for doing our work for us!

Hilary Rosen: Clinton missed her chance to ‘pass the torch and cement her grace’

That says a lot coming from Hilary Rosen, one of

the

power brokers in DC and the LGBT community, who was all over the airwaves as a tireless, staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton. Rosen’s column on Huff Post (where she is the new political editor) is a very strong signal from a Washington insider that a sad line has been crossed. Last night the senator from New York had an opportunity to seize the moment by bowing out with class and grace, acknowledging both her own success and Barack Obama’s. It would have begun the reconciliation that is now hard to visualize.

The life’s work of Bill and Hillary Clinton in partnering with so many African Americans uniting our purpose and promoting our mutual issues is as responsible for Barack Obama’s success as our first African American nominee as anyone. And yet, that joy is being denied for them by themselves. It is so sad.

So, I am also so very disappointed at how she has handled this last week. I know she is exhausted and she had pledged to finish the primaries and let every state vote before any final action. But by the time she got on that podium last night, she knew it was over and that she had lost. I am sure I was not alone in privately urging the campaign over the last two weeks to use the moment to take her due, pass the torch and cement her grace. She had an opportunity to soar and unite. She had a chance to surprise her party and the nation after the day-long denials about expecting any concession and send Obama off on the campaign trail of the general election with the best possible platform. I wrote before how she had a chance for her “Al Gore moment.” And if she had done so, the whole country ALL would be talking today about how great she is and give her her due.

Instead she left her supporters empty, Obama’s angry and party leaders trashing her. She said she was stepping back to think about her options. She is waiting to figure out how she would “use” her 18 million voters.

But not my vote. I will enthusiastically support Barack Obama’s campaign. Because I am not a bargaining chip. I am a Democrat.

Even in her belief that Hillary Clinton would make a fine president—the whole column is worth the read—Hilary Rosen is willing to point out, diplomatically, that the sense of entitlement that engulfed the campaign, along with the crippling denial as the losses mounted, resulted in an inability to pass that torch. Clinton obviously heard from Rosen and other trusted supporters about the impact and importance of the tone of the senator’s exit from the stage. How she handles it will also be part of her legacy—one wonders why the concerns and advice fell on deaf ears. Given the historic nature of this landmark campaign (that succeeded on so many levels, with the ardent support of so many), it is unfortunate—and perhaps quite revealing—that the bubble of Hillaryland was that impermeable.

***

And it is hard to wind down a campaign if some surrogates are continuing to operate in full campaign mode. See the role one deep-pocket donor, Black Entertainment Television founder Bob Johnson, is playing today. It’s below the fold.
Billionaire Clinton donor Bob Johnson’s ‘put Hillary on the ticket’ pressure letter

No shame.  I was getting ready for work this AM and on CNN, there was Clinton supporter and founder of Black Entertainment Television Bob Johnson, discussing his letter to House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn that “urges” the Congressional Black Caucus to tell Barack Obama that he needs to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket as his vice presidential running mate. He said it was “for the sake of party unity.”

Let’s do a little rewind; for the sake of party unity, Bob Johnson is a questionable emissary.He wasn’t exactly thinking about party unity (or race-baiting for that matter), when he said this:

At a rally here for Mrs. Clinton at Columbia College, Mr. Johnson was defending recent comments that Mrs. Clinton made regarding Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. She did not mean to take any credit away from him, Mr. Johnson said, when she said that it took President Johnson to sign the civil rights legislation he fought for.

“And to me, as an African-American, I am frankly insulted that the Obama campaign would imply that we are so stupid that we would think Hillary and Bill Clinton, who have been deeply and emotionally involved in black issues since Barack Obama was doing something in the neighborhood -­

and I won’t say what he was doing

, but he said it in the book -­ when they have been involved.”

He later “clarified” this with a ridiculous statement:

My comments today were referring to Barack Obama’s time spent as a community organizer, and nothing else. Any other suggestion is simply irresponsible and incorrect.

It’s hard to see Johnson as an honest broker. But maybe that’s not the point—since we’re talking about party unity, right?

June 3, 2008

The Honorable James Clyburn
U. S. House of Representatives
H-329, The Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Jim:

Now that you have endorsed Senator Obama as the Presidential Nominee of the Democratic Party; I, as a long-time supporter of Senator Clinton and of the Democratic Party, urge you to do everything possible to unify this party to win the Presidential election in November.  For me and millions of other Democrats, I believe that the most important step that you can take now is to encourage the Congressional Black Caucus to urge Senator Obama to select Senator Hillary Clinton as his Vice Presidential running mate.

As a businessman I understand the vitally important role that a Democratic President can play in establishing programs and policies throughout the government that stimulate and support economic opportunities for African Americans.  As African Americans we agree that the stakes in this election are far too high to take any chances that this party will not be unified from the top to the bottom in our effort to gain control of The White House.

You know as well as I the deep affection that millions of African Americans hold for both Senator Clinton and President Clinton.  You also know that Hillary Clinton has been a long-term advocate for racial and gender equality, from her early days as a lawyer with the Children Defense Fund to her prominent leadership roles on these issues as First Lady and as Senator from New York.  But most important, we need to have the certainty of winning; and, I believe, without question, that Barack Obama as President and Hillary Clinton as Vice President bring that certainty to the ticket.

Jim, as the highest ranking African American in Congress, I encourage you to follow your commitment to build a unified party by helping to make this a historic election of Senators Obama and Clinton who both have demonstrated that they have the courage and the ability to inspire and lead this nation to greatness today and for years in the future.

Warm regards,
Bob Johnson

There’s nothing wrong with the letter itself of course, it’s a matter of reading between the lines. On CNN, Johnson alluded to the “support” he’s given to members of CBC.

JOHNSON: What I’m doing is saying there were Congress people on Senator Clinton’s side on the caucus. There were Congress people on Senator Obama’s side of the caucus. What I’ve said to Congressman Clyburn is what we want is to have the best team on the field. I think the best team on the field is Senator Obama at the top and Senator Clinton as vice president.

ROBERTS: Let me ask you, Bob, about the timing of this. You’re doing it at 7:00, the day after he went over the finish line. Some people might say that by getting out this publicly on it, by going to Congressman Clyburn on it, you are trying to limit his options for who he can pick as a running mate. Almost forcing him to take Hillary Clinton.

JOHNSON: Not at all, John. In fact, let me correct something you’ve been saying. My letter was not a pressure letter. My letter was an urge and an encouragement.

As I said before, Senator Obama will make the decision based on what he thinks is in the best interest of the person who can help him win the election, and most important, the person who can help them best govern when he is elected president. So this is Senator Obama’s decision.

What I’ve asked members of the Congressional Black Caucus, many of whom I know and many of whom I support, is that we were on both sides of the primary party. Hillary Clinton supporters, Barack Obama supporters. If the caucus members can come together and agree as I do that it would be in the best interest of the party to have Senator Clinton on the ticket, they carry that petition to Senator Obama.

Now, in DC-speak, that probably means $$$upport, don’t you think? Hey, I could be wrong, but this wouldn’t be the first time big donors for Sen. Clinton have tossed their weight around this primary season.

This is hardball, so it’s not a stretch to believe—since it’s politics, after all—that any and all leverage can and will be used to ensure she’s on the ticket, though Johnson did specifically say that he and Clinton would support Obama even if she isn’t selected. He didn’t say to what extent. The process is in motion; we’re just along for the ride.

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Pam Spaulding on 07:00 PM • (23) Comments

When people end campaigns, they usually just drop out - a clear signal is sent to supporters that now’s the time to let things rest, and that they can use this time to come to terms with what happened and move on.

Hillary Clinton is communicating a million different things to a million different people, and the resulting outcome is pretty much predictable - chaos.

Comment #1: Jesse Taylor  on  06/04  at  07:35 PM

The word is now she will drop out Friday according to the Hugffington Post. I say if she does it by Friday thats good enough. If she doesn’t and waits another week, she has proven she has zero class.

Comment #2: Ben D.  on  06/04  at  07:37 PM

I really feel sorry for Hillary supporters. She is making them going through the lost race several times in a week. She could have done it cleanly instead of one clean concession. It’s like ripping band-aid start-stop slowly.  Ready from day one I guess.

Headlines so far: Rendell: “You don’t bargain with the nominee”, Rangel’s Concession Call, Clyburn Harassed

Comment #3: Jay Darla  on  06/04  at  07:54 PM

Well, considering that the supers gave Obama the win, and they can just as easily take it away again.  This is a tough spot for her.  She doesn’t want to formally conceed because she knows he hasn’t actually won yet.  But the media are going to keep nagging her to.

Obama peaked in Feburary, and has been losing to Hillary ever since (She won about 60% of the contests since then - look it up).

If he continues his downward slide in public support, then by the time August comes around the super-delegates could easily have a big case of buyers remorse.  So, if she can just suspend her campaign and wait for him to keep falling, she could end up the nominee after all.

But.  And this is a HUGE but.  Until she actually conceeds, The MSM, along with most Obama supporters will continue to attack her for failing to “notice” what they only imagine to have already happened - That Obama has won the nomination! 

Except he hasn’t.

The only way he (or she) can claim a win before August would be to get to a majority on Pledged Delegates alone - and we’ve known since the Super Tuesday primaries that neither one of them is going to be able to do that.

So, when the Supers pushed him over the top yesterday,  they changed the narrative, but not the reality.  Until August, when they actually vote,  His claim on the nomination is precarious. 

You all should just calm down and stop attacking Hillary.  Having Hillary stay in the race is actually good for him - because it prevents the Republican attack machine from gearing up fully - If they damage him to much before August, then they just end up with Hillary as the nominee - so they have to (mostly) hold their fire for a while.

Comment #4: Tejota  on  06/04  at  08:51 PM

*Having Hillary stay in the race is actually good for him*

IF she behaves.  Which she hasn’t been.  When she says things like McCain is more qualified than Obama, it puts Obama under attack from both sides, which does nothing but damage the party’s likelihood of winning in November.

Comment #5: Drocket  on  06/04  at  09:26 PM

She never said McCain is more qualified than Obama.  She said that McCain is more qualified for ONE ASPECT of the job - Commander in Chief. 

This is true.  McCain is more qualifed for that part of the job.  So is Hillary for that matter (because of her work in the armed forces committee).

But so what?  I’m sure that NONE of you choose Obama because you thought he was most qualified to order the military around.  You chose him for other reasons, and because you - like me - consider the Commander in Chief aspect of the job to be far less important many other aspect of the job. 

Off the top of my head, all of these are more important.

Enforces the laws.
Nominates Justices
Vetos (and proposes) Legislation
Head of state (i.e. lead diplomat)


Only Republicans and other idiots think that foreign policy is all about deploying the military.  The rest of us choose a civilian with civilian priorities to be President.  And the Military WILL follow his orders, whether or not he’s the most qualified.

Don’t buy into Republican frames by equating CinC with President.  The job is much, much, more.  And Hillary has NEVER said that McCain is more qualified than Obama for those more important aspects.

Comment #6: Tejota  on  06/04  at  09:59 PM

ntil August, when they actually vote, His claim on the nomination is precarious.

Obama’s claim on the nomination is exactly as precarious as John McCain’s.

Comment #7: DJA  on  06/04  at  10:17 PM

Obama’s claim on the nomination is exactly as precarious as John McCain’s.
Really?  I havn’t been following the Republican race, but I’m shocked that McCain hasn’t secured a majority of Pledged delegates yet.

I guess they really don’t like him all that much…

sweet!

Comment #8: Tejota  on  06/04  at  10:22 PM

Tejota, thats an interesting (and effective) way to frame that. Hopefully he will give a response along those lines.

Comment #9: Ben D.  on  06/04  at  10:38 PM

According to the rules, pledged delegates aren’t bound to vote for their pledged candidate any more than superdelegates are. (Remember, at one point the Clinton campaign stated its intention to go after Obama’s pledged delegates.) Once it gets to a vote on the convention floor, pledged delegates are free to vote for whoever they choose. If your argument is that the outcome is still in doubt because the superdelegates aren’t locked in until the convention, that’s true—but that’s also true of the pledged delegates.

Technically, you are correct that until the floor vote at the convention, Barack Obama isn’t the nominee, he’s just the “presumptive nominee”—just like John McCain.

In the real world, both presumptive nominees will be the nominees. Hillary will concede and we can all finally start training our fire on John McCain. Hallelujah.

Comment #10: DJA  on  06/04  at  11:03 PM

“sense of entitlement that engulfed (Clinton’s) campaign”?  Classy observation, given that it’s sexist.  She acted like a front runner, just like every other front runner who came along.  But look!  It’s a woman now!  She’s acting entitled!

In this, you’re in lock-step with Mike Barnicle.  I hope you like the company.

Comment #11: Dan in CA  on  06/05  at  01:43 AM

“sense of entitlement that engulfed (Clinton’s) campaign”?  Classy observation, given that it’s sexist.

This doesn’t make sense.

And, no, she didn’t act like a front runner. A front runner acts more competently and has contingency plans to crush any upstart.

Excusing bumbling with accusations of sexism is rather sexist in and of itself.

Comment #12: gwangung  on  06/05  at  01:53 AM

Obama was better funded, and unlike Hillary was quite willing to win the nomination by spending time and money in states that he had no hope of winning in the general. 

Hillary, on the other hand ran a general election campaign from the very beginning, spending time and money in only when it would benefit her in BOTH the primary and in the general. 

This is why she beat him in just about all of the swing states.  And why he turned out lopsided victories in the red states.

Right now Obama’s strategy looks brilliant.  But if it turns out he gave a way the general while winning the primary, then it will be a classic example of phyrric victory.

If you look at the electoral vote maps, it’s clear that Hillary’s strategy was sound.  Should would win against McCain easily because she has already made her case in the states that usually decide the election.

While Obama has only about a 50% chance right now.  (But that will probably improve)

I’m not sure I would say it’s incompetent to assume that no-one would try and win the nomination at the expense of the general.  It’s pretty clear that that’s exactly the assumption that Hillary made, and exactly the opening that Obama exploited.  (and his unprecedented fund-raising prowess made possible).

If it works, its brilliant.  But we don’t yet know that it will work.  I think that the Republican brand is in such samples that a Ham Sandwich could win as a Democrat this year.  But we really did end up picking the candidate (of the top 3), the performs the least well against McCain, so what could have been a sho-in will no be a nail-biter (at least until McCain - hopefully - tanks).

Comment #13: Tejota  on  06/05  at  02:20 AM

Tejota,

Obama is not the candidate who performs worst against McCain. Clinton ran against Obama by arguing the foreign policy experience is the most important criterion in picking a president. This was a bad primary strategy, but it would have been a disasterous strategy in the general against McCain. Running on experience in the primary would have allowed McCain to claim that his even greater experience made him a better candidate. He could have used her own core argument against her.

Obama countered her argument that her experience made her better qualified by arguing that judgment and good policy ideas are more important than experience. After all, her foreign policy experience included voting for the biggest policy blunder since Vietnam. He made her greater experience a weakness by tying it to a failed war and positioning himself as the candidate of change. This is a strategy that will work far better against McCain than Clinton’s claim that experience is what matters.

Comment #14: Jay  on  06/05  at  02:40 AM

Jay,  I like that argument.  But it apparently doesn’t persuade the marjority. 

The polls are clear, Hillary has virtually a lock on an electoral college win against McCain,  while Obama is tied with him (actually, just a bit behind, but within the margin of error).

Comment #15: Tejota  on  06/05  at  02:50 AM

If you are hoping that McCain tanks why do you keep repeating his talking points?

Comment #16: Margalis  on  06/05  at  03:25 AM

Y’know, given how many Democratic voters wanted Hillary Clinton for President, it would make both tactical good sense and show graciousness in victory if Obama supporters would quit trashing Hillary Clinton now their candidate has won.

I’ve seen a fair number of Clinton supporters saying that yes: they wish Clinton had won, they’re sorry she lost, it would have been great to have the Presidency of the United States not be a boys-only club any more - but now they’re going to focus on supporting Barack Obama, and isn’t it also great that it looks like the Presidency of the United States isn’t going to be a whites-only club anymore?

From their behavior in victory, it sure looks like Obama supporters wouldn’t have been that gracious in defeat.

Comment #17: Jesurgislac  on  06/05  at  08:18 AM

People will stop trashly HC when her actions stop justifying it.

Comment #18: Spanky  on  06/05  at  08:27 AM

Meant - People will stop trashing HC when her actions stop justifying it.

Comment #19: Spanky  on  06/05  at  08:29 AM

Since it seems unlikely that she’ll stop being a woman, being ambitious, or being successful, I conclude that Spanky and others will continue to trash her and continue to claim that “her actions justify it”.

Comment #20: Jesurgislac  on  06/05  at  08:42 AM

Right - those are the actions the justify trashing her. It wouldn’t have anything to do with her campaign, the constantly shifting goal posts, the constantly changing definition of states that matter, the lies about winning the popular vote, the rasict under-tones after the WV primaries, her notion that 18 million people are her bargaining chips, the backroom pressuring to be VP, her inability to even praise the democratic nominee, the nonsense with MI and FL…none of that.

It’s because she is an ambitious, successful woman that people are trashing her.

You make me sad.

Comment #21: Spanky  on  06/05  at  08:52 AM

It makes you sad that I’m not tied into the patriarchal paradigm that looks at everything Clinton does and makes it an excuse to trash her?

That makes me sick.

Comment #22: Jesurgislac  on  06/05  at  09:08 AM

Shame on you Pam. I can’t believe this is supposed to be a feminist blog. Your malign acceptance of the misogny perpetuated by Obama himself, his campaign, and media shows your true colors. I’d be real careful of putting all your hopes on Obama. He is a particularly sleazy, corrupt pol.

Comment #23: Mari  on  06/05  at  10:29 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.