A Dignity Promotion For Hillary Clinton
- 05.12.2008 - 1:49 PMRahm Emanuel, Illinois Congressman and former Bill Clinton aide, didn’t like Ted Kennedy taking a shot at Hillary Clinton. Kennedy, you may recall, said Clinton wouldn’t make a good VP pick because someone with “nobler aspirations” was needed. Emanuel said of Kennedy:“The gratuitous attack on her is uncalled for and wrong. He is a better senator than that comment reveals.”(H/T The Page) You don’t have to agree with the second sentence to think the first is on the mark.
We are now moving into the phase of the campaign where everyone gets their free swing at Hillary. As Cokie Roberts observed, much of the surrogate and media chatter has been “anything but respectful.” It may be emotionally satisfying for Obama supporters and media doyennes. And goodness knows both Clintons have definitely asked for some of the retaliatory shots.
But unless you are supporting John McCain, there is one big problem with all this Clinton-bashing: this is the last thing Barack Obama needs. Clinton, not surprisingly, is using it to whip up a backlash, hoping to ride it to big wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, which will prolong her run. And the Clintons don’t need much more encouragement to drag their feet and withhold full-throated support for Obama when the race does end. Her supporters, meanwhile, are acquiring yet another reason to resent Obama. Terry McAuliffe sounded the warning on Meet The Press:
She has 16.6 million very passionate supporters. We want to make sure at the end of this process, Tim, we as Democrats are all together. Sometimes we like to drive that car over the cliff of the Democratic Party. This is a very fragile time.
So Obama, the candidate who thinks our most vile enemies deserve a dignity promotion, might want to make sure his supporters grant one to his Democratic rival. After all, Obama’s sometime policy advisor Samantha Power tells us “I don’t think anyone in the foreign-policy community has as much an appreciation of the value of dignity as Obama does.” If he fails to demonstrate that he really understands this in a context closer to home (and makes sure his followers execute that policy with regard to Clinton), he’ll have failed in his first significant diplomatic effort. And, I suspect, come to regret it deeply.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 12th, 2008 at 2:28 PM
I freely admit I don’t understand the meaning of this topic
May 12th, 2008 at 2:40 PM
Rubin is explaining that it is in Obama’s political interest to make sure that– as HRC’s campaign for the presidency circles the drain– his supporters are polite and respectful and treat her as a worthy opponent.
May 12th, 2008 at 2:42 PM
Ted Kennedy’s comments to Al Hunt the other day are a perfect example of what Ms. Rubin think Obama’s campaign needs to *Avoid* in the coming weeks and months.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:00 PM
on the right- that seems like a microscoic point relative to say, the earthquake in china, but then I’m forgetting where i am. sister rubin is like pat buchanan on msnbc. she has to have a topic every hour
May 12th, 2008 at 3:16 PM
I take exception to Terry McAuliffe’s comment that Senator Clinton has “16.6 million very passionate supporters.” She has had 16.6 million votes cast for her. As one who has been a passionate supporter of candidates in races from local to national, let me assure you that a mere vote is one thing, passionate support is on an entirely different level. Many voters on both sides of this race admitted in surveys and exit polls that they’d be as happy with one candidate as with the other.
I also take exception to the vote count McAuliffe cites. Clinton actually has that total of votes only if you count the primaries in Florida and Michigan, which have not yet been legitimized.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:29 PM
Terry McAuliffe symbolizes almost to perfection everything that is rotten, fake, worthless, and dishonest about modern politics. How splendid to see him going down with the Clintons’ ship.
May 12th, 2008 at 3:41 PM
Operation Chaos continues unabated.
May 12th, 2008 at 4:06 PM
On the Right,
Actually, of the Clinton surrogates, I find Paul Begala to be the most repelling. His phony smile and fake way of speaking is enough to turn anyone into a Clinton hater. She should get rid of him in her fall cleaning, if she plans on running again in 2012 (assuming an Obama loss in November).
In the fight between Donna Brazile and Begala on last week’s CNN election coverage, I would say his logic was more compelling than hers, but her style is a lot more appealing. The best part of that spat was when Brazile said, “I’m going to go over and sit next to Bill Bennett.” Bennett is the only one of their commentators whose interpretations of polling results sound like real analysis as opposed to wishful or delusional thinking.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:31 PM
“Clinton, not surprisingly, is using it to whip up a backlash, hoping to ride it to big wins in West Virginia and Kentucky, which will prolong her run.”
These big wins were a foregone conclusion. She’s attempting through them to run up the popular vote enough to move yet another goalpost (ignoring essential facts along the way, like there not being a popular vote to even count in caucus states). Her invocation of the word “white” in her comments last week was tactical.
She goes to a state, sizes up her odds, looks at her internal polling, appeals to the voters she thinks she can win, and then moves on the next state and applies the same formula. Simple. (And it doesn’t seem to matter to her supporters that these state-to-state changes require adopting completely different personae - making her look fragmented and unstable.) The difference now is that she’s running out of groups to pander to, so she’s been forced to become more direct and explicit. Thus invoking the word “white” a couple of times (it wasn’t just once) in a state that is - surprise! - 97% white. And it will work for her because the only real value in mentioning race at all in WV is to underscore the race of her non-white opponent. The polls there already have her through the roof.
So it’s not so much about “staying in the race (heads up, the “race” is over). It’s another attempt to torture superdelegates into believing against all reasonable metrics and the rules that were set up and agreed to by all candidates in advance that she really should be the nominee.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:43 PM
Haha -”his phony smile & fake way of speaking is enough to turn anyone into a Clinton hater.
So thats it? Thats all it takes to hate a former President & former first lady & 2 term NY senator. I guess that includes Chelsea .
Does McCain hate Chelsea because she turned out so very attracrtive & successful ?