A Night of Grace for Obama
Posted on June 4th, 2008 in Uncategorized |
…and the opposite for Hillary Clinton.
Obama’s speech was inspiring and, on the subject of Hillary, remarkably gracious —far more gracious than I can bring myself to be.
“We’ve certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who’s shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning — even in the face of tough odds — is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; … an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be.”
Hillary’s speech astonished for its lack of humility and its refusal to acknowledge the fact that she has lost.
She asked voters to go to her webset and give her their opinion.
If you do, you find a huge prompt that says, “I’m with you Hillary, and I’m proud of everything we are fighting for.”
Apparently not all opinions are created equal.
(And if you vouchsafe an opinion, as I did—”mad lust for power,” etc.—after you hit “submit,” you are instantly hit up for money.)
There is simply no Democrat who can convincingly say that this speech was the best speech that she could give to support the party. Rather, it was the best speech that she could give to further her own lust for power.
I’m not usually a Maureen Dowd fan, but she nails it this morning.
Even as Obama got ready to come out on stage for his victory party, the Clinton campaign announced that it had won a Wyoming superdelegate and Terry McAuliffe introduced her at Baruch as “the next president of the United States.” She gave a brief nod to Obama without conceding that he was the nominee before rushing through a variation on her stump speech. She clung to her fuzzy math about winning the popular vote, and in one last fudge she said: “Thanks so much to South Dakota. You had the last word” — even though the Montana polls still had 25 minutes to go.
Dowd repeats a theory that crossed my mind last night when it was reported that she’d signaled a willingness to run as his vice-president (though her speech suggested no such compromise): That Hillary secretly thinks that, if Obama won the presidency, well, she’s just one bullet away from the Oval Office….
she figures that at least if she moves a few blocks from Embassy Row to the Naval Observatory, she’ll be a heartbeat away from the job she’s always wanted.
And if it happened, would she cry crocodile tears?
Imagine yourself running for president. Would you want Hillary as your #2, convinced that she’s really #1, constantly stabbing you in the back? Would you want Bill hanging around the White House, acting like he’s still president, chasing skirt on the private jet apparently known as “Air Fuck One”? Would you want Chelsea, still dispensing that utterly fake grin, still refusing to talk to the press, acting like she will be president one day?
The Clintons have become America’s most toxic family. (Yes, more than the Lohans.)
Now, thanks to Hillary’s machinations, the presidential candidate of her own party is in an extremely delicate position: Put her on the ticket, which would be a nightmare for him, or deny her the veep slot, cut off her power supply, like keeping a vampire from feeding, and ready the country for a clean, progressive, non-toxic White House, but risk losing the support of the Ellen Jamesians who have made Hillary their heroine?
14 Responses
I have always been in favor of analyzing politics by analyzing politicans, psychobabble and all. The personal realities of the human beings who present themselves as our leaders has always seemed very relevant to me in assessing whether to trust them. Bush I checking his watch. Bush II smirking. Bill Clinton chasing tail. Etc.
However, your analysis, though ostensibly written along these lines, just smacks of bile. You’re trying so hard to deify Obama, and demonize Clinton, that your commentary reads like cheap shot after cheap shot. Yes, his speech was gracious — guess why: because he NEEDS the Clintons. No matter how much you hate Hillary, she ran a very effective (and historic!) campaign, especially toward the end, when Obama clearly faded. Focusing on what it would be like to have Hillary and Bill around from a purely personal standpoint evades the main point, which is whether Obama needs to bring them in from the cold to get the job (McCain) done. Whether or not he asks Hillary to run, he needs to solidify for himself the votes she represents. That’s the issue — not your petty ramblings about a former first daughter’s refusal to be interviewed.
You are looking at things through a romantic prism in which you desperately want the guy riding the “white” horse to slay the evil dragon. Here’s a better prism: “Keep your friends close — hold your enemies closer.” (Arabian proverb)
Couple things. Yes, Obama needs Hillary, and that’s the main reason he’s so gracious. That doesn’t make it easy. Hillary needs Obama, too, and she wasn’t nearly as gracious.
Much as you’d like to think the personal characteristics of the Clintons are irrelevant—much as we’d all like to think that—it just ain’t so. You’ve got Bill hanging out with Ron Burkle, Chelsea at her hedge fund, Hillary talking assassination—these three would make the process of governing very difficult. And Obama has to consider not just what it would take to win, but what it would take to lead.
And the point is, none of this is necessary, Hillary’s a very impressive woman who could (at least, without Bill) make a great v-p. She’d actually be much more likely, I think, to get the slot without tearing the party apart, as she’s doing. She talks about the 18 million people who support her, but she’s not fighting for them (who is she kidding?), she’s fighting for herself.
If Hillary had exited from the race gracefully, anything would be possible. But she’s not making this any easier. That is a function of personality, and regrettably, her personality isn’t going to change.
That quip about the Lohans was the funniest you’ve made on this topic, and much better than anything in that stupid Maureen Dowd column.
While I agree with Anonymous that RB has taken some cheap shots at Hillary, just wait until McCain starts dishing the dirt on Obama. I think it’s unwise to put him on a pedestal. As Paul Krugman would say, we are in an age of diminishing expectations.
No argument that Obama is impressive and has lead an amazing campaign with the B team when Hillary had the A team (in theory). Yet, like all politicians, it’s still to important to question who and what has been sacrificed for Obama’s ambitions. I believe such things will reveal themselves shortly…
“stupid Maureen Dowd column”
See in the dictionary under pleonasm.
“stupid Maureen Dowd column”
See in the dictionary under *pleonasm*.
SE
Richard, comments keep getting swallowed up. This is an incredibly glitchy and unwieldy site recently.
Also, I agree that your anti-Hillary obsession is tedious. This thing has been over since at least March; there’s just no point in dwelling on her.
Okay, I guess there was just a delay on that first one.
Correction: I’m all for discussing the personal characteristics of politicians. I started out by saying this. What I’m saying is that the way you’re choosing to do it doesn’t convince me you’re being, well, fair and balanced. I think you hate Hillary because you suspect that, like Lindsay Lohan, she’s a closet lesbo.
Oh sorry, got carried away with the speculation in that last paragraph….you inspired me.
In other news, what do you think of Obama recruiting the aid of Caroline Kennedy (of all the Kennedys) to help pick a VP mate? Would love to hear your insight RB…
Will we be updated on the commencement speech?
r
o
So, Roark, what dirt do you think is in the offing for the oldster to dish — other than the expectable (too young, not ready enough to bomb countries, won’t keep us afraid enough, etc.)? Btw, I think RB was on the mark with HRC, but will retract if she shows any retreat from her entitlement on Friday.
For RT, aside from the obvious, it’s what we don’t know YET that I’m sure the Repuglicans will work hard to reveal in the coming months. (For all we know, they might even make some crap up too.)