Booman Tribune ~ A Progressive Community

Clinton's Losing Argument

by BooMan
Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 12:11:01 AM EST

If Al Gore and Jimmy Carter do really ask Hillary Clinton to drop out of the nominating contest it will be a huge development. But I am not sure that they will not just be told to eff off and mind their own damn business. The Scotsman is a very reputable newspaper, but the story is not sourced at all. I can't put too much credence in their report.

DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president. Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.
Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.
"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

Here's what I do know. Clinton does not have a convincing 'electability' argument against Barack Obama because she cannot win the nomination in such a way that the party will be more united behind her campaign than they would be behind an Obama campaign. The Scotsman puts it politely:

Obama's campaign has been a phenomenon in American politics, bringing in record numbers of new voters and record funding, and few think the superdelegates would dare deny him victory if he wins the popular vote.
It would also invite the unedifying spectacle of a mostly white elite denying an African American candidate a chance for the presidency. "It would cause a scandal to do that," says one party official. "To turn around to the black community and say, 'You got the most votes, but no'? Unlikely."

Quoting a 'party official' is not very impressive, but the underlying point is unassailable. Clinton might have been more electable if she had won Iowa, Super Tuesday, and any of the metrics of the race, but she didn't. At this point it is impossible that she can emerge as the nominee without being seen as an usurper by the majority of the electorate. So, her efforts to paint Obama as unelectable really amount to nothing more than an argument that no Democrat is electable, and in the current political environment that is an absurd assertion. It might be true that Clinton is unelectable, but only because she has alienated such a large portion of the Democratic base and because winning the nomination would only further alienate the base.

Anyone that is still seriously considering a Clinton nomination should be honest. She can't win the nomination in a way that would render her more electable than Obama. And since that is her sole remaining argument and justification for getting the nomination, she is wrong and delusional. At this point she should be defending Obama against unfair attacks on his patriotism, his choice of church, his qualifications, and his merits. That she is doing the opposite is not a reason to support her, but a reason to be 'bitter'.

If Gore and Carter weigh in, they'll be weighing in because they understand this very basic reality. I hope they do.

Clinton's Losing Argument | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (4.00 / 2)

Ah, jeez, just stop.

Carter and Gore would be fools to get involved with this, and I sure hope they don't.

And as for this:

"Here's what I do know. Clinton does not have a convincing 'electability' argument against Barack Obama because she cannot win the nomination in such a way that the party will be more united behind her campaign than they would be behind an Obama campaign."

Are you sure? Seems to me a lot of resentment has been built up on both sides and neither candidate is doing anything to stop it.

At the moment, neither candidate has the required number of delegates to win the nomination. Both candidates could win in November if the party can pull itself together, but it doesn't seem to me that our candidates want the party to do so at the moment. As long as this situation persists, Clinton has no reason to pull out of the race. Obama has nothing like a real majority of the party and I'm sure that's part of the calculus.

The more people push this meme of Obama entitlement, the more reasons the Clinton team has to be aggravated about being pushed out of the race.

It seems that as soon as people pick a side, they forget that each side feels aggrieved by the other side's tactics. Maybe I would too if I had a dog in this race, but I don't. All I want is to win in November, and what I see is that both sides have found ways to avoid that happening.

As things stand now, I'm not sure that even having Clinton pull out tomorrow and throw her support to Obama would heal the wounds - that's something Obama is going to have to figure out how to do. The fact that he's not doing it may have a lot to do with why Clinton is staying in the race.

AC
More liberal media at The Sideshow.

by Avedon on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 07:31:34 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

And what wound has Obama inflicted in Clinton other than beating her?

Has he said that she is unqualified or that McCain is more qualified than she is?

Has he questioned her grade school essays?

Has he called her an elitist?

Has he said she has only won certain states because she is white, or because she is a woman?

Has he used surrogates to suggest she used to be a drug dealer, or to spread around the rumor that he was educated in a 'secular madrassa'?

I obviously could go on and on and on.

Obama has not talked about Clinton's record as First Lady of Arkansas or America. He's given her a pass on every conflict of interest, every missing file, every shady fundraiser, basically everything you can find in any of a dozen right-wing books about the Clintons.

He mentioned that she worked on board of Wal*Mart and he noted that her effort to pass universal health care failed. Other than that, a total pass for her.

So, I don't see a single thing for a Clinton supporter to be resentful about except the fact of the loss itself.

The converse is not true. Obama supporters not only have to forgive an unrelentingly negative campaign that has included a healthy dose of racial politics, they'd have to forgive losing the nomination when he won more elections, more votes, and more delegates.

Do the math and the psychology.

by BooMan on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 10:18:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

Also available in orange.

by BooMan on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 12:14:40 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

Are you sure that this isn't a rehash of a Republican's talking point?

DEMOCRAT grandees

Wouldn't a DemocratIC Party insider use the correct adjective?

And would they refer to the Party's statesmen as grandees, given that Carter and Gore really are statesmen with a certain amount of well-earned dignity and gravitas weighed against a strong dollop of humility, whereas the Clintons and their clique are pompous self-entitled poobahs desperately seeking an eternal crown and pissed that it wasn't handed to them by divine right and inheritance. Even the word grandee implies inherited nobility!

Grandee is a word either to render in English the iberic high aristocratic title 'Grande', used by the Spanish, Portuguese and Brazilian peerage, or by analogy to refer to other people of a somewhat comparable, exalted position, roughly synonymous with magnate, and in particular by analogy to a formal upper level of the nobility, such as a peerage (especially if granted parliamentary seats). By extension the term can refer informally to any important person of high status, particularly a wealthy, landed long-time resident in an area.

This doesn't pass the smell test.

by hauksdottir on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 12:45:29 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

I don't particularly see how the language is a problem. It's a UK paper so they're using UK political language to describe the papers. By calling them Grandees they're saying the source is a relatively elderly but high placed Party member, so you're talking committee chairman, etc. the Nobility description might have been in the Victorian age, but it's different nowadays.

As for the lack of named source that's relatively normal in UK papers, having to deal with UK libel laws.

by ceebs (bunchofwankers (at or about) gmail (point) com) on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 09:13:06 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

I wouldn't make too much of that word choice. It is not found in one of the anonymous quotes, but was apparently a word chosen by the person writing for The Scotsman.

And, as Booman wrote, the underlying points in the article seem unassailable. Hillary has been moving the goalposts yet again, with her people now claiming that if Obama doesn't win the state Clinton supposedly had locked up, it's a bad sign for him. She's repeatedly said that she is in this thing all the way to the convention. Dean, Pelosi, and others have said that this would be unacceptable. Even if it doesn't turn out to be Carter and Gore, I imagine party leaders are talking to to someone about applying some very public pressure after Pennsylvania.

by Renee in Ohio on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 09:21:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

If Al Gore and Jimmy Carter ask Hillary to drop out, what would be the "carrot" or "stick" they could offer her that would make her accept?

by fudgelady on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 01:15:20 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

No one owes her anything. Why are we to suppose someone needs to offer a carrot? A stick doesn't seem appropriate either. She just needs to be told she can't make it. And her hubby needs to be told too. The greatest unspoken lie of her whole campaign is that she, not her hubby, is running for president. He acts like a clumsy, slightly abashed boy in the background who occasionally makes a controversial statement. Then when the statement doesn't go down well she turns around and tells Bill to shut up (while whispering try again after a few days). They play a shoddy, sexist husband and wife act which wouldn't even make it to hundredth place in a sitcom competition. Her nasty, arrogant parading of her 'super-Americanism' is reprehensible. Every one says over and over again how smart she is. Right, Karl Rove is no dope either. And the by the way, Barack and Michelle Obama are at least as every bit intelligent as the Clintons.

by Quentin on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 03:56:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

They wouldn't need to offer a carrot or a stick - the two of them speaking together against Clinton in this fashion chould shift the ground in such a way that Clinton could lose PA outright, and she'd have no choice but to concede after that. Well, she would have a choice, but she would seem like a petulant child throwing a temper tantrum because she didn't get her way if she stayed in the race after that.

The Underground Railroad

by Oscar In Louisville on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 09:26:26 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

Jimmy's got yer endorsement RIGHT HERE!

by Fledermaus on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 03:18:35 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

Spot on Booman.....

Now that Hillary is a gun toating duck hunter....let's revisit her in a debate, ...when asked to raise their hand if they owned a gun as an adult....guess what Hillary didn't raise her hand.....but now she is a Crown Royal driniking gun toating duck hunter...LMAO

http://www.docstrangelove.com/2008/04/13/hillary-clinton-from-tuzla-to-guns

by gaiilonfong on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 04:41:10 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

I don't know if Carter and Gore will weigh in publicly. They both seem to have other things on their minds and prefer to stay above the scuffle.

But Corzine was quoted yesterday saying nearly the same thing about Hillary and his/the party's ability to support her if she doesn't have the lead in delegates and votes. For a guy who has given a forture to her campaign and stumped a lot for her, that was a significant comment

by Andrew Longman on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 08:54:47 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

If Clinton can't win against Obama, how would she win against McCain?

Leslie

by Muons on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 09:09:20 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

Let me re-post Noam Scheiber, TNR

Clinton Campaign Further Strengthens the Democratic Party NOT

Strange how the Clinton approach to strengthening the Democratic Party is remarkably similar to the GOP's approach to strengthening the Democratic Party.
P.S. Clinton chief strategist Geoff Garin justifies the small-town assault in this interview with TPM Election Central's Greg Sargent.
My response, in case it needs to be spelled out: Yes, all this might be fair game ... IF OBAMA WEREN'T OVERWHELMINGLY LIKELY TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!!!
(Noam's emphasis)

Long past the time for Clinton to GO.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 09:46:18 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

I can hear the great HRC wailing victim beast clearing its throat from here.

by mainsailset on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 09:50:37 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 1)

Which is why this can't happen, if it's going to, until Penn has voted. If Obama can hold her to single digits, Gore and Carter and other could come out and say, "Alright, it's clear Obama's going to win, so let's end this." If they come out beforehand, and she wins Penn, it'll have been for nothing, because the press will look past it.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to you country.

by Drew J Jones (blahblahblah@blahblahblah.com) on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 10:45:34 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

I'm in a rural town less than 5,000 people. Obama spoke truth. We don't need the elists press to explain Obama's words.

Clinton and the city based media are out of touch.

And as The Carpetbagger Report, Ezra Klein, Elizabeth Drew notes Clinton is playing 'molehill politics' trying to make Obama unelectable.

Ezra Klein
All the older reporters tell me that this is supposedly the greatest campaign of my lifetime and the thing that makes political journalism worthwhile, but seriously, look where we are today: Discussing an off-the-cuff comment in which one of the Democrats suggested that economic anxiety manifests in cultural conservatism. This is not a new idea. And in most forms, it isn't even a particularly objectionable one.
It's worth saying that I'm not defending Obama here. I see nothing that he needs defense from. There's no actual attack being levied that anyone can rebut, or ideas being tossed out that anyone can argue. Instead, Obama has said something Politically Damaging. And it will Damage him. And we'll all watch to see how badly.
But let's be clear: It's not damaging because we think it foretells him doing something harmful to the country. It's not damaging because it suggests his policy agenda is poorly conceived, or his priorities are awry.... We reporters have to cover it, of course, because it's Really Important, and matters more than the housing plans of all the candidates put together. But it matters in a completely self-referential way, it matters only because it matters, not because it means anything about Obama, or illuminates anything about his potential presidency. It's a hollow scandal.... And this is why I don't like writing about the campaign. It's full of hollow scandals and ignored travesties.

Main street agrees with Obama. Media is one big part of America's problem. Instead of reporting on policy differences we get Instant analysis, the wrong bits and bites of "off-the cuff" remarks as if Mr. and Mrs. Joe Mainstreet can't read, see or hear for themselves.

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 10:48:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

Meet the Press has 3 anti Obama blow hards on right now. I can not believe that I have to rely on Bob Shrum to actually combat these attacks.

A co called elitist who just paid of his student loans won states like Nebraska, North Dakota, and Kansas being out of touch with Americans? It is so laughable that Hillary with her former Wal Mart job and current 100 million in the bank if more in touch than a man who worked the streets of Chicago.

The press is disgusting.

Blue Tidal Wave

by Mac G on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 11:05:16 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

No, the press is dying. They're fighting so hard against Obama because he's demonstrated that he doesn't need them to win. He can use the Internet to organize a distributed, grassroots campaign that not only bypasses the media establishment, but empowers the people they've dedicated themselves to repressing. This is their last gasp. If Obama wins, they become as irrelevant as radio post-Kennedy.

Kill because somebody was killed. Get killed because he killed. Do you think peace will ever come like that?

by Egarwaen on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 1)

I'm not at all sure, Hill/Bill give a shit what Gore and Carter think. So I don't think the private approach would work at all. Publicly, it should make all remaining super delegates jump off the fence onto Obama's side. Even then I'm not convinced HRC would give up. There's something a little demented about her persistence at this point.

The photos this morning on HuffPo of her drinking with the guys were repulsive. The next likely photo op is her in a brand-new full-camo pantsuit (ala Kerry in the muddy field) with a dead duck dangling from her up-raised fist.

by sjct on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 11:20:13 AM EST

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 1)

Late last night I saw the picture of Hillary doing shots in Pennsylvania. I find myself intrigued by the possibilities here. What else might she be persuaded to do in her quest to prove that she is "regular folks"?

by Renee in Ohio on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 12:01:28 PM EST

Poling The Public (none / 0)

Here's one possibility that I'd really rather not see come to fruition...

The Underground Railroad

by Oscar In Louisville on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 01:58:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Poling The Public (none / 0)

Ha, me neither but if she does enough shots who's to say what she might do.

Thanks a lot for putting the image of Hillary pole dancing in my mind-if I have nightmares tonight I'll blame you Oscar.

'Poverty is the worst form of violence'--Gandhi

by chocolate ink on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 04:26:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Clinton's Losing Argument (none / 0)

Exactly. Because there's an element that is in love with her victim argument, this could easily be red meat.

by mainsailset on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 01:00:53 PM EST

no source, no story (none / 1)

This is just the media bullying Clinton, or at least trying to. Calls for Clinton to quit the race just makes her half of the Democratic party angry.

I can't believe that Carter or Gore are dumb enough to lend themselves to this.

This is going to the convention. Everyone needs to get used to that.

by AliceDem on Sun Apr 13th, 2008 at 01:59:24 PM EST

Clinton's Losing Argument | 25 comments (25 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]

. Home
. About
. Contact
. Advertise
. FAQ
. Search

Username:
Password:

. Make a new account
. Reset password

Gift Cards * New Arrivals

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES
Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.

Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")

Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)

Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)

"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen

The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review

BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual
$79.95 * Sale: $59.95

Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)

The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan

Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----

Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review

Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey

1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus

Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"

Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)

The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids
by Madeline Levine

Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com
:

We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:

Booman Tribune Homepage
admin@boomantribune.com
powered by Scoop

More blogs about Blogs at Technorati.

Technorati Profile