Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama.
"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.In its specifics, this claim is preposterous. Recall that Clinton lost Iowa by almost ten points. Recall that the Clinton campaign's biggest weakness was an utter ignorance of caucuses. Recall that after Edwards dropped out, Clinton lost eleven straight primaries. But in broader terms, the worst thing about the Clinton campaign is/was their complete inability to come to terms with the fact that they were supposed to lose. Not because Barack Obama is more of a liberal, not because he'd make a better president, not because Clinton supported the war, not because Bill Clinton is amoral, but because they ran a losing campaign.
People rarely fail because of mysticism. There are almost always specific things that are under their control, which they fail to do. For instance--not exercising self-awareness. For much of the primary Clinton's argument was based on dubious qualifiers. Here was excuse-mongering as art: If you count only the primary states we're winning. If you count Florida and Michigan we're winning. If you count the states with the most electoral votes, we're winning. Now it's, If the John Edwards story had broke we would have won.
Woflson claims that Edwards and Clinton voters were the same. Really? What happened in Wisconsin? What happened in Indiana? (you know what I mean) What happened in Virginia? This is, ultimately, why I'm glad Clinton lost. Accountability does not exist with these guys, and in that, they really are Bush-lite. They had millions of dollars, front-runner status and, allegedly, the greatest politician of our era stomping for them--and they got their asses handed to them. But they can't come to terms with it.
In what universe should you be able to run a disorganized, mismanaged campaign, to not understand proportional representation, to disregard whole states, to not have a Plan B, and still win? This is like a quarterback throwing six interceptions and then complaining about the fans. Give me a break.
UPDATE: Why speculate when we have actual data:
In the networks' Iowa entrance poll, 43 percent of those who went to a caucus to support Edwards said Obama was their second choice, far fewer, 24 percent said they would support Clinton if their top choice did not garner enough votes at that location. The remainder of Edwards' backers said they would be uncommitted under such a scenario, offered no second choice or said they preferred someone else.
Nor was Clinton the obvious second choice among Edwards supporters in Post-ABC pre-election Iowa caucus polls in July, November or December. In July, for their alternate pick, Iowans split 32 percent for Obama to 30 percent for Clinton. In November, Obama led 43 to 26 percent as backup pick, and he had a slight 37 to 30 percent edge in December.
This dude works in PR? Really? This is what you from your flack? Look, in this world of cynicism, I know we think public relations basically consists of only lying, but one should at least be able to lie intelligently. I have no idea why dude said this. It doesn't help Hillary. As for getting another gig, I wouldn't hire this cat to clean my drapes. He'd halfway do the job, and then blame the wind.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Nailed it.
Moreover, the Clinton campaign's inability to just fucking let it go speaks volumes. It's over, they lost, and spinning these what-if scenarios serves no purpose except to keep whatever resentment lingers alive and to assuage their egos. "Bush lite" is right, and the Clinton supporters who think this kind of hubris is OK as long as it's their guys who are doing it drive me up the wall.
Lost me with the football metaphor, but yeah.
C won Indiana, no?
had broken
Clinton lost
Jackie Robinson
/starts slow clap
You killed, Ta-Nehisi. A perfect summation.
/starts slow clap
You killed, Ta-Nehisi. A perfect summation.
"Disgusting?"
"Had their asses handed to them?"
The primary was essentially a tie. Obama ran strong until March, then limped across the finish line in June.
I am a Clinton supporter and agree they initially ran a poor campaign that more or less cost her victory in February, but I actually became more convinced of her strength the longer she ran, because I thought she course corrected well and that Obama could just not pull ahead as demonstratively as his early performance suggested.
I think your language is pretty strong for such a close race b/w two very talented candidates.
Also, re: Wolfson's projecting? Spare us all, Howard. File this one under control those surrogates!
"Disgusting?"
"Had their asses handed to them?"
The primary was essentially a tie. Obama ran strong until March, then limped across the finish line in June.
I am a Clinton supporter and agree they initially ran a poor campaign that more or less cost her victory in February, but I actually became more convinced of her strength the longer she ran, because I thought she course corrected well and that Obama could just not pull ahead as demonstratively as his early performance suggested.
I think your language is pretty strong for such a close race b/w two very talented candidates.
Also, re: Wolfson's projecting? Spare us all, Howard. File this one under control those surrogates!
D'oh! Sorry for the double comment...
I heard a surprisingly good description of these kind of outbursts from the Clinton camp on CNN, I think it was from an Obama Surrogate.
It went something like this
Wolf Blitzer: What do you think of Clinton saying that if votes had been counted differently, she would have won?
Obama Surrogate: Well if my grandmother had a male organ, she'd be my grandfather. What's your point?
It was not a tie; Obama won.
And even though it was not a blowout, Hillary had been preparing for this for 6 years. She was famous, had all the money in the world, and every other conceivable advantage and she blew it.
Barely losing against the Junior Senator from Illinois is an ass kicking of epic proportions in that context.
"Had their asses handed to them?"
The primary was essentially a tie. Obama ran strong until March, then limped across the finish line in June.
Fair enough. But let's remeber that Obama was a one-term, newbie black liberal who started out 30 points behind in the polls, no cash, no institutional support and very little name recogntion. Saying that it was "essentially a tie" just doesn't do it justice.
RE: redstar
The longer Hillary ran the dirtier her campaign got, and they essentially threw everything they had at Obama, deriding him in every way possible. He stuck to the high road, and generally avoided reverting to Rovian tactics. Hillary kept it close by playing very, very dirty, not by proving her strength as a candidate. Moreover, you're just reinforcing the notion that Hillary supporters can't let it go.
Remember the gas tax holiday? That was pretty late in the campaign. And a blatant pander.
redstar,
It was not a tie.
And you know this cause you hid behind the qualifier "essentially" to make your point.
At the start of the campaign team Clinton had all the momentum, the institutional support, the big money backers, the name recognition, the white house experience... HC was inevitable remember?
For the improbable to beat the inevitable was stunning. An ass whuppin indeed.
For some reason, this reminds me of a scene from "A Fish Called Wanda":
Otto: You know what your problem is? You don't like winners.
Archie: Winners?
O: Yeah, winners.
A: Winners, like... North Vietnam?
O: SHUT UP!!! We did not lose Vietnam. It was a tie!
A: Ah'm tellin' you baby, they kicked yer little ass, there. Boy, they whipped yer hide REAL GOOD!
O: No they didn't.
A: Oh yes they did.
O: Oh no they didn't.
A: OH YES THEY DID!
O: OH NO THEY -- SHUT UP!
@ Whitey - I'm no less reinforcing the primary divisions than many of the commenters on this blog. When I read the level of vitriol against Clinton - that her and her surrogates are "disgusting," for instance - it sounds eerily similar to the anger some Clinton supporters evoke against Obama. That he's nothing but an empty suit, that he's the one playing the race card, and these folks believe this stuff. I actually find my response much less emotional than some of the others in this thread, and elsewhere.
I also believe that this notion that only one candidate fought dirty to be ludicrous. Weeks before Bill Clinton uttered his famous "Jesse Jackson" line in SC, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama's campaign co-chair, went on the news post-NH on Jan. 9th and accused Clinton of faking her tears, suggesting they were contrived and should be investigated because as far as we all knew she never cried over Katrina or Iraq. Excuse me?? What a vile insinuation, both sexist and racist.
I really take issue with the notion that one candidate stayed above it all, while the other was down and dirty. I think they both played dirty, both ran hard, and both faced differently unequal playing fields.
Is there anything else left for HRC supporters to blame her loss on? I'm fearful that we're going to start hearing calls of "Do over! Do over!" from Wolfson et al, that those who voted for Edwards during the primaries should have a chance to recast their votes since they should not have counted. I wouldn't put it past them, not they way they've been reaching for straws, ie excuses, since the primaries ended.
Who cares what the Clintons and their surrogates think? Who's even listening to that Howard's explanation except sore losers?
It's called rationalizing to themselves. One reason they are so sore Obama won IS because they thought the nomination of Hillary was inevitable.
People in the business of politics have huge egos. They can't stand failure. And the longer they've been successful, the harder failure is to accept.
Wolfson can't accept the idea that maybe he has partial responsibility for the fact that his client lost.
So he's gotta blame everybody and every circumstance he can.
Now it's Edwards.
He's made himself so laughable that he's had to resort to bedding with the enemy. Can you imagine being him? A bigshot political consultant for the biggest name and most powerful couple in Democratic politics reduced to working for FOX News?
He's embarrassed by himself. If he can blame it on somebody else, he can feel better about his new job.
Agree with redstar. "asses handed to thme", would not be correct, as it was essentially a tie.
As other commenters have noted, Hillary should have KILLED - given her advantages starting out.
But still, even though almost tying when you have all the advantages, reflects on the big weaknesses in the campaign, it's STILL almost a tie - and thus "asses handed to them" is incorrect.
"The primary was essentially a tie. Obama ran strong until March, then limped across the finish line in June."
This meme was repeated by the talking heads to keep their audience engaged, but after the split in "must win" Texas, the race was over.
Obama contested until the N.C. blowout/Indiana tie and then he basically mailed it in. He wasn't "limping," he had shifted to primary mode campaigning in battleground states like Missouri and Iowa where primaries had already been held.
The post Texas race was a purely superdelegate race and when you compare the two candidates on that measure, it was a constant drubbing.
More reasons to be happy Obama won the nomination. These guys would've messed up the general election and then blamed their supporters.
It's so time to hand this over to a new generation.
It was like a title fight where Hillary was the champ and Obama was the unkown challeneger, yeah it was a close win. The challenger needs a clow out to overcome the inherent advanatges the champ has.
Put simply a narrow win for Obama was a blow out win.
And Redstar,
There is no better description for Wolfson's comment than disgusting.
Wow. Truly classless. Yet not at all unexpected. 'Cause she did win the popular vote after all. If you don't count Iowa. Or any caucus state. Or any votes taking place on any day ending in a "y".
Loving the wisdom of the Ta!
Re: redstar (and every Clinton supporter who takes this line)
The race really wasn't that close. Clinton went on for weeks and weeks after she knew she couldn't win legitimately. Any retrospective narrative that calls the contest "close" willfully ignores the reason that the contest was unnecessarily "close."
This is the same thing that bugs the crap out of people with regards to the "why isn't Obama pulling away from McCain? He's only up by 5 points! Aren't you liberals worried yet?"
HE'S WINNING YOU A-HOLES!
@Ben - I disagree with the word "legitimately."
@redstar
I'm sure you do.
The Michigan/Florida debate is legit I suppose, but that was decided. Twice.
A brokered convention in 21st century is legit?
Or am I missing something here?
Fair enough. But let's remeber that Obama was a one-term, newbie black liberal who started out 30 points behind in the polls, no cash, no institutional support and very little name recogntion.
Don't forget the initial wave of 97 super delegates for Clinton. Of course, once the supers started breaking for Obama, she whined that they shouldn't make up their minds yet. Super delegate endorsements only bothered her when they weren't working for her.
I think that's where the term "disgusting" is apropos. She said Michigan and Florida shouldn't count (and even signed a pledge not to participate) but ignored her own written pledge when it wasn't to her advantage. (What do you mean? Of course the votes should count! Yep, disgusting.) As pointed out above, she trotted out every other bogus metric, studiously avoiding the only one that counted. She played footsie with Richard Mellon Scaife, the man who literally accused her publicly of being responsible for the murder of Vince Foster. Bill went on the Rush Limbaugh show. The last half of her campaign was a pathetic and highly un-presidential display of "ME! ME! ME!!!"
Weeks before Bill Clinton uttered his famous "Jesse Jackson" line in SC, Jesse Jackson, Jr., Obama's campaign co-chair, went on the news post-NH on Jan. 9th and accused Clinton of faking her tears, suggesting they were contrived and should be investigated because as far as we all knew she never cried over Katrina or Iraq.
Well I, for one, firmly believe that her tears were real. She was crying over the fact that the handwriting was on the wall, and that he expectations of being the nominee were slipping away. I believe that's why she cried. Again, it was a display of "ME! ME! ME!!!"
As to Obama not winning big near the end, he held back late in the game because he knew virtually every scenario showed it was over. After Clinton finally conceded her loss, they even had an internal quote by Obama to the effect that her supporters' anger was unjustified because he had held back ... a LOT. Of course, he delivered the ultimate insult. He won.
"These people are disgusting" is a really strong phrase for someone imagining things turning out differently.
The tragedy is that Edwards voters were hoodwinked, and I don't know why. All the signs of his vain personality were there. Now, we can see that the media failed to properly vet him when even the Enquirer was shouting from the rooftops about his secret life.
Also, John Edwards is not stopping Elizabeth from talking about breast cancer. Elizabeth allowed John to lie to voters and misrepresent himself as a family man when she knew in 2006 that he was a cheater.
Elizabeth, thanks for the enabling your cheatin husband John Edwards to hide his girlfriend with baby from the voters. That stuff wouldn't have gone down very well in Iowa. It made it easy to steal Hillary's votes!!! I'll bet Elizabeth would not have supported her husband if she knew that Rielle Hunter was trashing her in front of John. Now, go buy some diapers.
Hillary Clinton should take on Obama in Denver on the convention floor. What's she got to lose? Nada!
Do these people not realize that Bill Clinton would never have won in 1992 without Ross Perot taking votes away from George H.W. Bush? Sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it does not.
I think it's important to remember that this is Wolfson making the claim, and not Clinton. It's important because what Wolfson seems to be doing is covering his ass for his next gig. If he can move some of the blame away from himself, especially in light of the unflattering stuff that's about to come out in The Atlantic, then he'll still be a big dog in the world of running elections. He's just trying to make himself more saleable.
Do these people not realize that Bill Clinton would never have won in 1992 without Ross Perot taking votes away from George H.W. Bush? Sometimes it works in your favor, sometimes it does not.
Let's not forget that the Democratic primary system was created by people who went on to become top Hillary surrogates, only to say that the system was corrupt once it worked against them. The campaign was awful and now they're making excuses that weaken the ticket. I'm not saying there wouldn't be Obama supporters doing the same, but that doesn't make it an intelligent or righteous thing to do.
So Clinton supporters should just get over it? I see the Dems still don't get it. Kiss my female vote good bye for talking down to us, tossing our concerns aside, and acting like an abusive partner. Male Dems may think that liberal women don't have any place else to go, but any place is better than a party of scared frat boys who back down from impeachment, let the Religious Reich take away abortion and birth control rights, and still expect us to meekly go along because they think they've got us cornered.
The terms used to describe Clinton supporters are telling, sexist, and all too obvious. Don't think we're not noticing. The Dems have nothing to offer women any longer. They've pissed it all away already. Choke on it.
Elizabeth allowed John to lie to voters and misrepresent himself as a family man when she knew in 2006 that he was a cheater.
Hillary allowed Bill to lie to voters and misrepresent himself as a family man when she knew in 1992 that he was a cheater.
Is this one of the issues she'll discuss when she "takes on Obama" on the convention floor?
@Ruthye: "Hillary Clinton should take on Obama in Denver on the convention floor. What's she got to lose?"
Uh, the respect of many Obama supporters she's finally gained back? The entire black vote and a lot of other votes, too? The general election?
re: redstar
As a Patriots fan, I could argue that the Superbowl was close, but I wouldn't object to the statement that the Patriots "got their asses handed to them" in the Superbowl, because they did.
I would not use the specific quote here to generalize that Clinton's people are disgusting. It's more likely that Wolfson is a fool. For one thing, Wolfson was the communications guy, not the polling guy. He has no direct knowledge of what he is talking about. (Carville who presumably has some clue about that, answers the question differently when asked in the link. And provided he is not serving Sen. Clinton in some capacity, he has just harmed his patron by prolonging the whole sour grapes meme. If Wolfson is still carrying the Senator's messages to the press, then Wolfson still is a fool -- because it means that he is hitching his reputation to a fool.
re: redstar
As a Patriots fan, I could argue that the Superbowl was close, but I wouldn't object to the statement that the Patriots "got their asses handed to them" in the Superbowl, because they did.
Spot on TNC.
The thing that irritates me the most about the Clintons is how they avoid stepping up to take responsibility for mistakes. That is my MINIMUM qualification for someone who wants to lead the country. Or lead anything at all.
It's like the same attitude extends to their surrogates: Never Ever Admit That You Might Be Wrong. Absolutely, that's what I think of when I hear the term "Bush-lite" -- obviously on real policy matters there's an ocean of difference between Bush and the Clintons. But in that never-step-up-never-admit-a-mistake...It's a particularly noxious quality that is all about being run by the politics of politics, not about having dialogue.
Hell, Obama's made mistakes. But I can think of several examples where he's acknowledged and addressed them.
/rant
And beyond that, this is really more of the tin-ear stuff... I mean, it's screamingly callous to say he hurt someone else's chances for the Presidency by running RIGHT NOW, when Edwards and his wife are dealing with quite enough bs right now from the press.
"The tragedy is that Edwards voters were hoodwinked, and I don't know why. All the signs of his vain personality were there. Now, we can see that the media failed to properly vet him when even the Enquirer was shouting from the rooftops about his secret life."
Voters who were hoodwinked by Edwards willfully chose to be so. A cursory glance at his legislative record shows that he didn't support the populist cause that he made his own during the campaign. Even when comparing his 2008 message to his 2004 message, he'd undergone a great transformation. Listening to his rhetoric, his appeals were strongly emotional. When you look at these things combined, I think it's always been pretty obvious that he was exploiting a niche, considering the transformation he underwent once he realized he didn't have a future in North Carolina politics.
@ginmar: "So Clinton supporters should just get over it?"
No. Never, ever let it go, no matter how much time has passed and how possible it may be that the other side has a logical point. That will do a lot to erase those unfair, sexist opinions about women you're so concerned about.
what's she got to loose?
Everything. She WILL loose a floor vote. It wouldn't even be close. And in the aftermath her political career as a Dem would be kaput.
Or she can go back to the Senate and cross her fingers and hope that Obama looses so she can say "I told you so" in 2012. Heck she could even send Bill out to continue to stir discontent in the party with his "Obama played the race card" talk.
But if she goes out there and embarrasses herself at the convention I doubt a solid 50% of the party will be willing to forget that any time soon.
Hillary is a clown who owes everything to her husband and has set the woman's movement back 50 years by protecting Bill and calling his paramours trailer trash and stalkers.
No real feminist could ever support a hack like Hillary.
Instead, you've got a bunch of Diva-worshiping old bags who just make themselves look foolish talking about voting for John McCain.
What a joke.
"any place is better than a party of scared frat boys who back down from impeachment, let the Religious Reich take away abortion and birth control rights"
Yes, you're right...clearly you should vote...FOR the party you're trying to impeach, and for the people taking away your abortion and birth control rights. Or sit out and make it that much more likely that party succeeds. Democrats have nothing to offer you? Have you even looked at what anyone else offers you?
I knew some people acted against their interests, but I can't imagine a more egregious example of hurt feelings overriding rationality. You want to stop being talked down to? Stop acting like the kid throwing a temper tantrum and holding his breath because he didn't get his way. Because that's exactly what you're doing. You want women to be treated fairly while going on and on about how we have to step on eggshells in every line we say to avoid using "terms" you arbitrarily deem to hurt your feelings? Talk about cognitive dissonance.
If you look on the bright side, at least Wolfson didn't blame Earl Warren's ruling in Brown v. Board of Education for Hillary's loss. The GOP might go there before this is all over though.
It's like I think I'm about to have an intelligent debate with people, but to no avail. No wonder non-Obama supporters, Obama-skeptics, fed-up feminists, and folks who don't love wading around in sexism and condescension have shrunk their blog rolls so much over the primary season.
(Though Joel - I'm from MA, and I have to concede your Pats analogy! Good one.)
Get bent Obama supporters.
Obama RAPED Hillary and ran the the most SEXIST campaign in history.
Hillary should be the Dem nominee or I am votinf for McCain.
"Get bent Obama supporters.
Obama RAPED Hillary and ran the the most SEXIST campaign in history.
Hillary should be the Dem nominee or I am votinf for McCain."
Terri, you're a perfect example of what's wrong with the Clinton camp and some (a few) of their delusional and insufferable supporters.
Hillary is NOT the nominee, and she will NOT BE the nominee. So go ahead and vote for McCain out of spite, because you are clearly a spiteful and vengeful person. The VAST majority doesn't give a sh*t what you do or what you think.
"Get bent Obama supporters.
Obama RAPED Hillary and ran the the most SEXIST campaign in history.
Hillary should be the Dem nominee or I am votinf for McCain."
Terri, you're a perfect example of what's wrong with the Clinton camp and some (a few) of their delusional and insufferable supporters.
Hillary is NOT the nominee, and she will NOT BE the nominee. So go ahead and vote for McCain out of spite, because you are clearly a spiteful and vengeful person. The VAST majority doesn't give a sh*t what you do or what you think.
Actually, the story was reported twice before Iowa. Just had to be a National Enquirer reader. MSM bites it again.
Kiss my female vote good bye for talking down to us, tossing our concerns aside, and acting like an abusive partner.
So just what ARE your concerns that are being tossed aside? I mean REAL concerns, not the desire to see Hillary, who lost the nomination, get stroked rather than the Dems throwing everything they've got behind the person who actually won the nomination. What was it that Hillary was going to do that Obama refuses to consider? I'm serious. I want to see a serious, issues-based, bullet-pointed list.
Male Dems may think that liberal women don't have any place else to go, but any place is better than a party of scared frat boys who back down from impeachment, let the Religious Reich take away abortion and birth control rights, and still expect us to meekly go along because they think they've got us cornered.
Whoa! I never realized that Nancy Pelosi was a "scared frat boy". I bet her husband would be a bit surprised by that description, or the genitalia associated with it. (Well, maybe not. "Not that there's anything wrong with that.")
I find the Dems to be rather weak, ineffective, and feckless, but I have to compare that to the Repubs who are actively destroying our nation. But hey, if you feel that bitter, vote for John "Roe vs. Wade Should Be Overturned" McCain, and then howl at the moon when the Scalia-clone he selects for the Supreme Court makes it happen.
This is essentially the same garbage argument people have used to argue that Bush really won in 1992. Assume that 70-90% of the third party's voters would have voted for you; declare victory.
The Clinton aide is right. That self absorbed, narcissist of a man split the vote in Iowa, setting Obama up as number 1.
If Edwards hadn't run, we'd be looking at a win in November with Clinton, maybe even with Clinton/Obama. Unlike the latter, Clinton was willing to unite the party by putting her opponent on the ticket.
Now we're stuck with the incredible shrinking candidate in a year that was supposed to be a Democratic sure thing.
Nice work!
As for the Clinton bashers above: God save Obama from his supporters! Never before have I seen a group of people so determined to repulse potential allies/voters. You are your candidate's worst enemy.
Sorry for the double post.
ginmar, give it a rest. Not everything is about sexism. But as a woman, I'm embarrassed that so many of Hillary's feminist supporters have been such sore losers. Somebody always loses. Always. I've only voted for a winning candidate twice, and that was Bill Clinton. DId I whine and complain all the other times I didn't? No. What you guys are doing is acting like emotional brats. You're kind of living up to the sexist notions of women. Hillary lost according to the democratic primary rules, rules that she agreed to and actively supported until she saw the writing on the wall. Whether it was by a lot or a little doesn't matter. If one more person votes for the winning candidate than the losing candidate, the losing candidate has still lost.
If you are petty and immature enough to vote against your interests because some of Obama's supporters think you ought to get over it already, then go the hell ahead. You're just giving truth to the "sexist" assumptions about you.
Wolfson really calls into question who HRC would choose to surround herself with if she were to become president.
Who did a better job?
Wolfson and Penn or Plouffe and Axelrod
If HRC hires sycophantic fools to run her campaign she'd choose sycophantic fools to run our government.
Finally; Talk of adultery makes people move AWAY from the Clintons, not towards them.
LOL @ "most SEXIST campaign" ever."
Compared to what? All the previous female presidential candidates whose campaigns were simply ignored???
Do Clinton supporters ever read what they write?
"Now we're stuck with the incredible shrinking candidate in a year that was supposed to be a Democratic sure thing.
Nice work!"
I don't know what this means, but he's winning. So we do have that on our side.
"Male Dems may think that liberal women don't have any place else to go, but any place is better than a party of scared frat boys who back down from impeachment, let the Religious Reich take away abortion and birth control rights, and still expect us to meekly go along because they think they've got us cornered."
Back down from impeachment? Which impeachment are we talking about? Clinton's or the idea of Bush's?
"we've got you cornered"?? What the f does this mean? Do you seriously think there are large substantive differences between Obama and Clinton on nomination of judges/fed dollars at home and overseas/birth control policy?
"any place is better" Ok. Go vote for McCain. He will get you more Alito/Roberts nominees and more Christian right pandering. By all means, buy your cross at full price and pound in your own nails so you can fully enjoy the sadistic, narcissistic victimhood angle in its full glory.
great article. nailed it.
Terri, seriously,
"Get bent Obama supporters.
Obama RAPED Hillary and ran the the most SEXIST campaign in history."
You need to calm down. That sort of language and drama does no one any favours, least of all yourself. Male or female, no one wants to hear anythign from someone who is all caught up in hysterical tantrums.
My suggestion - just take a time out and think about it. Think about what you want for yourself, your children and your country. Yes, your girl lost, but life is about rolling with the punches. As much as you may hate Obama, think of which candidate is more likely to deliver on the democratic ideals and agendas that I ASSUME you want. (You must, right? Or else why would you vote for Hillary? Right?) Finally, realize this, odds are, the makeup of Obama's cabinet wont be ALL that different from one Hillary would put together. Think of it.
Think of the big picture. And, most of all Terri, think a little before spewing the sort of stuff you put out today.
"I've only voted for a winning candidate twice, and that was Bill Clinton. DId I whine and complain all the other times I didn't? No."
Nice to know you'll take Obama's impending loss with good cheer, Elizabeth.
Me? I kinda wanted a Democrat to win this year.
Ben, I don't know what polls you're looking at but right now we have a tie and the numbers are moving towards McCain.
Maybe you should insult Clinton supporters some more? It's working so well! (for the other guy)
"So Clinton supporters should just get over it? I see the Dems still don't get it. Kiss my female vote good bye for talking down to us, tossing our concerns aside, and acting like an abusive partner. Male Dems may think that liberal women don't have any place else to go, but any place is better than a party of scared frat boys who back down from impeachment, let the Religious Reich take away abortion and birth control rights, and still expect us to meekly go along because they think they've got us cornered.
The terms used to describe Clinton supporters are telling, sexist, and all too obvious. Don't think we're not noticing. The Dems have nothing to offer women any longer. They've pissed it all away already. Choke on it.
Posted by ginmar | August 11, 2008 2:10 PM"
For all of the talk about Clinton representing women, she only won female voters by 7%. She lost young women, which means the younger generation of feminists didn't see her representing them. Anyway, who is the real frat boy, Bill Clinton who has no respect for women (and Hillary Clinton has no respect for herself for staying with him) or Obama, who has shown no evidence of cheating on his wife? Bill Clinton has shown he thinks of women as little more than objects with orifices, so how is his wife who went around calling his mistresses lying whores supposed to be a feminist?
I'm a lifelong Democrat who has never voted for a Republican. I supported Hillary in the primaries and would certainly vote for her if she were able, somehow, to take the nomination away from Obama. I firmly believe that the Edwards debacle will serve to alert the American people to the kinds of cover-ups by mainly Democratic politicians that are made possible by the complicity of the mainstream media.
That realization will not help Obama one bit, and may in fact contribute to his failure as a Presidential candidate. The full extent of his radically far-left associations throughout his life is an issue that just starting to surface in the media, and there are many more revelations to come about his relationships to Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, the CPUSA and the DSA. Not only that, but most Americans are not aware of Obama's radical positions on "born-alive" infanticide, or his plans (lately censored/redacted from his web site) for a Stalinist-style national volunteer security force as large as our present-day military.
Hillary and Bill were right all along -- the man in totally unelectable. The DLC and other sane centrist interests in our party need to get over the stupid "all opposition to Obama is racist and McCarthyite" crap and rally around Hillary Clinton again in the run-up to the Convention.
We need to take a strong, united stand against the moveon.org/DailyKos fascist-left takeover of the Democratic party and their dedicated Marxist candidate Barack Obama.
Great article
Wow, this is getting nasty.
I'd encourage those who supported Hillary to think about a few things before voting for McCain:
1) Consider how much of the sexism you may perceived in the primary was due to Obama, and how much actually came via press buffoonery (Mathews, various Fox people, etc.), which had nothing to do with Obama.
2) Imagine the dirt that would've been thrown at Hillary in the general, compared to anything the Obama camp may have done.
3) Imagine the Supreme Court under McCain, after 3 of its most liberal members have been replaced by the likes of Roberts and Alito. There would be a guaranteed, impenetrable, far-right majority on that court for 25 years.
And that's just for openers...
"This is like a quarterback throwing six interceptions and then complaining about the fans."
You do understand that these folks are, at bottom, profoundly anti-democratic. I don't mean anti-Democratic Party. I mean they are opposed to democracy in all of its chaotic and unpredictable appearances unless they win and can set the agenda. Wolfson et al. are quite contemptuous of the electorate, especially those members of it who don't believe that the sun rises and sets in the behinds of the Clintons or whoever else happens to be kicking down some cash to them at the moment.
Yes, they are disgusting. They are also our enemies and we should never forget this fact. No matter how much they and their enablers and paymasters talk about unity.
So Boz Martin apparently confuses e-mail chain letters with reality. Good to know.
"Nice to know you'll take Obama's impending loss with good cheer, Elizabeth.
Me? I kinda wanted a Democrat to win this year."
You don't get a win by nominating Hillary Clinton, one of the most divisive figures in American politics for over a decade. The only people who like her voted for her in the primary campaign and that wasn't enough to win. People plain just don't like her. That's simply the reality of American politics.
"Ben, I don't know what polls you're looking at but right now we have a tie and the numbers are moving towards McCain.
Maybe you should insult Clinton supporters some more? It's working so well! (for the other guy)
Posted by Gayle | August 11, 2008 3:04 PM"
How much predictive power do polls taken around the time of the Olympics in August have before the conventions and the VP pick announcements? Just about zero. Before you comment on polls, you might want to know something about statistics and statistical noise.
Wow, looks like the Clinton brigades are stil out in force. Coates makes one comment about Wolfson and a whole bunch of peopel who've never commented her before show up out of the woodwork.
Though I'm thinking Boz Martin is actually a McCain supporting troll. No actual sane Democrat could call Obama a marxist. If you seriously believe Obama's economic plans are marxist then you must disagree with the entire democratic economic platfrom since 1932:-)
Oh, I do love it when so-called liberal men use every sexist piece of crap they can find, along with their AMAZING mind reading abilities. Voting for Repubs? There's other candidates and other parties. Scorned women, which is what Moff essentially called Clinton supporters? A sexist trope that goes back to the Bible, which is not noted for its feminist underpinnings.
Good job, guys! You're losing more and more votes every second! You'll be choking on those cooty-covered lost votes come November.
Sneering at women to 'get over it' and 'stop holding a grudge' is just more sexism for: "The misogyny we and our Chosen One display is nothing important, and we're going to gloat."
Well, go ahead, and assume that Clinton supporters are voting for McCain, along with all the other sexist little lies you console yourself with. See how that feels.
And remember this: I didn't leave the Democratic Party or its members. They left me. You left me. You don't get to dictate my feelings or opinions about your behavior. You want those opinions to change? Stop acting like Republicans.
If any Dem women DO vote for Republicans---and that's the newest sexist slur on women----it'll be because amidst all the patronizing behavior and advice, orders, and misogyny, it just became impossible to tell the overtly sexist ones from the passively sexist ones. TAke a good long look in the mirror.
Whoa, it's getting so ugly in here.
I doubt earlier Edwards revelations would have helped Hillary Clinton, not only for all the reasons Ta-Nehisi describes so well, but also because they would have opened the door to endless conversations about Bill Clinton's adultery and his lies about his adultery and, frankly, Hillary's lies about his adultery. They would have taken away from HRC's strengths -- policy, hard worker etc -- and refocused everyone's attention on the weaknesses that ultimately killed her campaign anyway, weaknesses having to do with lack of judgement -- mismanagement, lying and a frankly hysterical level of general drama that comes along with the Clintons. I say that having voted for Bill twice and Hillary twice for senate. Obama in the primary, though. I'm done with national level Clintons.
"That realization will not help Obama one bit, and may in fact contribute to his failure as a Presidential candidate. The full extent of his radically far-left associations throughout his life is an issue that just starting to surface in the media, and there are many more revelations to come about his relationships to Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, ACORN, the CPUSA and the DSA. Not only that, but most Americans are not aware of Obama's radical positions on "born-alive" infanticide, or his plans (lately censored/redacted from his web site) for a Stalinist-style national volunteer security force as large as our present-day military."
That volunteer force proposed by Obama had nothing to do with defense. It was a civil force along the lines of the programs put in place under FDR, working on infrastructure, teaching, etc. "Stalinist" stinks of hyperbole, considering that such programs are used throughout Europe and East Asia. Marxist? Have you even looked at his policies?
Lest we forget, he's also the Indonesian Manchurian Candidate. And he's a Muslim. Or is he the Kenyan Manchurian Candidate? I forget.
For the record, Obama was going to vote to confirm Roberts until it was pointed out to him that would hurt him with Democrats in a presidential primary.
On the issue of choice and reproductive freedom, I don't trust *either* of the major party candidates. McCain is and has long been, a tool. And Obama thinks women should be able to get abortions once theyve consulted with their pastors and their partners, and does not follow Doe v Bolton, which was really part and parcel of the Roe decision.
If anyone is voting for *either* of these guys with the idea that person will protect women's right to choose, I think they're being very naive.
Vote for whichever appeals to you, but do so with open eyes, and full awareness that neither of these guys is a strong supporter of choice, in spite of Obama's NARAL rating (my cat could get a 100% rating from NARAL).
Hillary Clinton lost because she hired a weak team, ran with a bad strategy, and was too arrogant to see it was going badly until it was too late. The Clinton campaign was run the way Bush ran the Iraq war.
It's really not any more complicated than that.
For the record, Obama was going to vote to confirm Roberts until it was pointed out to him that would hurt him with Democrats in a presidential primary.
On the issue of choice and reproductive freedom, I don't trust *either* of the major party candidates. McCain is and has long been, a tool. And Obama thinks women should be able to get abortions once theyve consulted with their pastors and their partners, and does not follow Doe v Bolton, which was really part and parcel of the Roe decision.
If anyone is voting for *either* of these guys with the idea that person will protect women's right to choose, I think they're being very naive.
Vote for whichever appeals to you, but do so with open eyes, and full awareness that neither of these guys is a strong supporter of choice, in spite of Obama's NARAL rating (my cat could get a 100% rating from NARAL).
If Hillary ran today she'd win.
Ginmar:
"Good job, guys! You're losing more and more votes every second!"
Um, you're much ruder than them. I wouldn't be calling the kettle black if I were you.
Oh yeah, that "I didn't leave the party, the party left me" was the same line used by Zell Miller. I'd rather not emulate him.
RE: Ginmar
"And remember this: I didn't leave the Democratic Party or its members. They left me. You left me. You don't get to dictate my feelings or opinions about your behavior."
I didn't know Joe Lieberman read this blog...
This election is a choice between John McCain and Barack Obama. Period. Full Stop.
November 5 is TOO LATE to wake up to the hostile, anti-woman country John McCain is going to gift our daughters if he gets his hands on the Presidency.
November 5 is TOO LATE to regret enabling the appointment of THREE Right Wing Supreme Court Justices. Which is a real possibility if McCain becomes President.
Every feminist worth her salt understands this.
Has it occurred to anybody that Terri and ginmar might just be some Freeper trolls posing as clinically insane Hillary supporters?
Are the prerequisites for being a PUMA that one be fat, loud, obnoxious, and ignorant?
November 5 is TOO LATE to wake up to the hostile, anti-woman country John McCain is going to gift our daughters if he gets his hands on the Presidency.
There are surely many differences between Obama and McCain, but I can't see feminism as being the one to hang your vote on. Obama has not shown himself to be remotely feminist - in fact quite the opposite.
I'm not suggesting a vote for McCain, only that voting for Obama because you think he's a "good" feminist candidate is both naive and contrary to what we've seen from his own statements.
And please, some civility people.
I honestly thought some of the posts above were possibly trolls trying to stir up the Obama-Clinton divide, but I think the sentiment is real for at least some of the posters.
On this topic, if someone is dead-bent on not changing their mind about Obama, I don't think there's anything more to be said that hasn't been said a thousand times already this election cycle.
Please don't escalate with overheated language. Please be civil.
"And remember this: I didn't leave the Democratic Party or its members. They left me. You left me. You don't get to dictate my feelings or opinions about your behavior. You want those opinions to change? Stop acting like Republicans."
Well, the majority of women according to polls are saying they are voting for Obama. There is a difference between dictating to you and pointing out you are wrong. How did we leave you? By winning by playing by the rules? Did young women somehow leave you by not liking what they saw in Clinton? Obama won by playing by the rules agreed upon before voting started. Clinton wanted to change those rules after voting had started, which is a classic GOP move. Talking for no reason about nuking Iran if they attack Israel is a classic GOP move. Supporting the use of cluster bombs to appear tough is a classic GOP move. Not willing to take personal responsibility for one's failings, which has been one of the Bush administration's problems, is what Clinton's campaign people are now doing. The Clinton primary supporters who aren't supporting Obama now are just dead-enders. It is the rump of crazies just like how the rump of any failed movement tends to be filled with crazies. If you choose to associate with the crazies, that is your choice, but you don't get to blame your decisions on Obama supporters because you read coded sexist language that isn't there.
PUMA hater,
Please, leave weight out of this. Plenty of fat people want nothing to do with this anti-Obama nonsense.
Okay, the comments here have now gone far afield. It's one thing to object to a small part of what Coates is saying, another to regurgitate the bitterness of the primary fight.
Not to mention - I think we have some trolls posing, to simply cause a bit more havoc, for the hell of it.
Deleted for a nasty personal attack. Sorry but no.
"Obama has not shown himself to be remotely feminist - in fact quite the opposite."
Based on what? Do you have any actual evidence besides Clinton talking points and e-mail chain letters?
I think Hillary explained her loss to the world when she said that she knew she was loosing the white male vote because "she reminded them of their ex wives."
Personally I think that a Hillary Candidacy would have led to a McCain Presidency. Think about it the prospect of Hillary Clinton running for president probably gave Rush Limbaugh a warm fuzzy feeling. Its better for everyone that Obama is the nominee.
On a side note I don't think Hillary's losing is in anyway a comment on American Sexism. In a nutshell the woman is all thumbs. She doesn't have the ability to meet and greet the people that her husband did.
@ MCG: You know, I am wondering if several posters on here are trolling.
@ Broce: I'm assuming you are being sincere, so I'll respond. Your statement is simply false.
Obama has a long history of being pro-women's issues. He's had a 100% rating from NARAL for several years. Well-known feminists like Katha Pollitt, Eve Ensler, and Alice Walker chose to endorse him over Hillary Clinton.
He's passed a LONG list of legislation to reduce violence against women, including protection from being fired for abused women who seek treatment and increasing the penalties for repeat offenders of domestic violence. The list is here:
http://www.barackoblogger.com/2008/06/barack-obamas-record-on-womens-issues.html
I do thinks it's a bit weak to blame John Edwards for their loss. They lost because their strategy was flawed. Hell, their strategy only lasted until Super Tuesday. They had no infastructure in the remaining contested states. Poor planning. Plain and simple. Ultimately, the only person to blame is Sen. Clinton. She was in charge.
This is going nowhere fast. Locking this thread. Sorry if I enabled this in any way.
I do thinks it's a bit weak to blame John Edwards for their loss. They lost because their strategy was flawed. Hell, their strategy only lasted until Super Tuesday. They had no infastructure in the remaining contested states. Poor planning. Plain and simple. Ultimately, the only person to blame is Sen. Clinton. She was in charge.
I think your criticism as 'disgusting' is way over the top. You can argue with him, which you have somewhat effectively with the data. But since when are former advisors not allowed to engage in 'what ifs?' Did you read Bob Shrum's book. It's 100s of (very readable) pages of "If only..." and "what ifs" for the 8 past Democratic presidential campaigns. I think you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
In terms of the accuracy of his statement, it is hard to know what would have happened. But recall that Iowa's system weights rural areas more than urban areas. Clinton and Edwards were strongest in the rural areas in the center and western part of the state (not near Illinois). It is possible that had Edwards dropped out, she would have gotten less than Obama in 2nd choice voters, but those 2nd choice voters would have counted more. Those rural areas get more delegates per person, and this isn't captured in any poll. It is why Edwards did so well in 2004 (with polling showing him in single digits and him placing 2nd). Wolfson may be wrong on other counts (e.g., would Biden have emerged as the non-Clinton, non-Obama alternative? Or possibly Richardson?). But his logic is not completely off, nor is it 'disgusting.'
I think your criticism as 'disgusting' is way over the top. You can argue with him, which you have somewhat effectively with the data. But since when are former advisors not allowed to engage in 'what ifs?' Did you read Bob Shrum's book. It's 100s of (very readable) pages of "If only..." and "what ifs" for the 8 past Democratic presidential campaigns. I think you have Clinton Derangement Syndrome.
In terms of the accuracy of his statement, it is hard to know what would have happened. But recall that Iowa's system weights rural areas more than urban areas. Clinton and Edwards were strongest in the rural areas in the center and western part of the state (not near Illinois). It is possible that had Edwards dropped out, she would have gotten less than Obama in 2nd choice voters, but those 2nd choice voters would have counted more. Those rural areas get more delegates per person, and this isn't captured in any poll. It is why Edwards did so well in 2004 (with polling showing him in single digits and him placing 2nd). Wolfson may be wrong on other counts (e.g., would Biden have emerged as the non-Clinton, non-Obama alternative? Or possibly Richardson?). But his logic is not completely off, nor is it 'disgusting.'