home

A Method To The Defiance?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:16:28 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I have been thinking about the strategy Hillary Clinton has adopted in light of the declaration that Barack Obama is the Presidential nominee. I think it does mean she wants to be the Vice Presidential nominee. Let me explain my thinking.

Clinton has kept her supporters committed to her by demonstrating her fire and toughness - her commitment to playing the political game on her terms. I have stated my own preference that she take a more conciliatory tack and acknowledge what seems to be. But let's face it, the Media and her enemies were ready to dance on her political grave and declare her an irrelevancy. In order to put herself in play for VP, against seeming resistance from Obama's circle and the Media, she needed to flex her political muscles.

More . . .

Now Clinton has done that and made "will Clinton be the VP?" a central question in this campaign. Now when Obama DOES pick a VP, he has to consider what it means NOT to pick Hillary Clinton. She has raised the stakes.

You can call it what you want, admire it or despair about it, but IF Hillary Clinton wants to be VP, it is reasonable to argue that she needed to flex her political muscles. Now if she endorses Obama on, say Thursday or Friday - she has made her point. She is not "invisible."

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Leadership | Rezko Guilty Verdict: The Relevance >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Method To The Defiance? | 241 comments (241 topical)
    flexing muscles (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Jlvngstn on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:19:21 PM EST
    is exactly what a president with zero political capital will need in his administration. She is doing the right thing for her country, not herself. I hope he gets it.

    undermined... (none / 0) (#222)
    by vrusimov on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:29:26 PM EST
    from the second that she compared hers and McCains legitimate experience with Obama's being merely a speech that he gave in 2002 she has undermined him as a candidate...i can imagine this playing in an attack ad.

    the infantile and contradictory commander-in-chief nonsense is another instance of her marginalizing him as a presidential candidate.

    when the questions come and they will, how will both her and Bill reconcile their unwavering support with comments and statements made previously?...they'll sound like hypocrites.

    Bill Clinton claimed in his rant against the Vanity Fair piece that Obama uses his surrogates to slime Hillary...this was just two days ago...

    any scandals that are unearthed will only serve to hinder a candidate with his own set of problems...

    It is clear that there is hostility between both candidates and it was exacerbated by her refusal to concede last night, refusing to acknowledge a winning candidate that has worked as hard as she has for the nomination...

    she just could'nt give the man his due, could'nt stand the humiliation of the moment, could'nt take being upstaged by an upstart, could'nt acknowledge the history of the moment, even if it was'nt hers, could'nt resist a final poke at the media...and for what? to try and bully her way onto the ticket as VP? to revel in the chants of her supporters who would see the convention in August made a circus in a futile attempt to make her the nominee?

    Obama should look at alternative candidates who will play true subordinate roles and not hi-jack the news cycle or distract from the message and tone of his campaign...someone who would'nt continue to steal his thunder...

    [ Parent ]

    If Obama was a classy guy (none / 0) (#225)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:06:59 AM EST
    and wanted unity with Clinton supporters, he could have waited until today, tomorrow . . . and let women and others have their moment to celebrate the historic success of the woman who won more primary votes than anyone ever, woman or man.

    After all, it was the eve of the 89th anniversary of the passage by the Senate of the 19th Amendment, the only amendment written by a woman -- Susan B. Anthony -- and for women.  And it was the eve of Clinton's mother's 89th birthday.  Yes, she was born on that historic day.

    A historic day for more than half of this country, and far more than half of Dem voters.  But then, Obama is supposedly the only historic candidate.  And he had to steal the moment, just as he stole the votes.  Not a classy guy.  He lost a lot of votes with his impatience . . . also not a good characteristic for a president.  No thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    "Defiance"? That's such a sexist frame. (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:21:24 PM EST
    Can we move past this, please?

    Haven't we had enough of it?

    Yikes.

    Excuse me? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:24:49 PM EST
    Defiance is something only for women? Since when?

    I am willing to listen to why you think so. Please explain.

    [ Parent ]

    To me, defiance is something you (none / 0) (#14)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:26:22 PM EST
    talk about in regard to a recalcitrant child, not an accomplished, powerful U.S. Senator.


    [ Parent ]
    then we have different definitions (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:27:50 PM EST
    "Defying the odds" for instance.

    [ Parent ]
    For example (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:29:10 PM EST
    "The act or an example of defying; bold resistance to an opposing force or authority."

    [ Parent ]
    I think what bothers me (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by cloudy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:28:52 PM EST
    with the word, defiant, in this context, is it suggests she is the DNC's or Obama's to rule.

    defiance:The act or an example of defying; bold resistance to an opposing force or authority.

    She has more than earned the right to choose her own path, in her own time.  I don't think she is posturing for the VP spot, if Obama is smart and can read the writing on the wall, it is hers to turn down. Yet he and his surrogates would have it seem as if she needs to beg for the number 2 spot, even though she has more votes.  This is their idea of Unity. It seems they can only win if she is humiliated.  He can only shine if she is diminished first.  Where is the leadership in that?

    [ Parent ]

    Not Defiant Regarding VP (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:37:08 PM EST
    That is not the context. The rule is to concede, when it is clearly over. Hillary exception to the rule is the point, and that is good strategy given the historic nature of this nomination process.

    It is good strategy for the Democratic party. We need her as VP and we need as many democrats on board to beat McCain.

    [ Parent ]

    Squeaky, please show me where the (none / 0) (#177)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:43:22 PM EST
    rule says to "concede when it's clearly over?"

    [ Parent ]
    Not Literal (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:48:12 PM EST
    But in the sense of what is usually done, iow, the figure of speech exception to the rule. This race is exceptional. Record votes, AA and Female candidate. Super heated and split party.

    In order to unify the party a bit more time is appropriate to cool the heels and also flexing of muscle to show Obama that he needs Hillary.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, John Edwards "suspended" (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:51:45 PM EST
    his campaign and until he just endorsed Sen. Obama, he was still suspended...Romney suspended his campaign, and as far as I know, he is still in suspension. Nothing is final until the votes are counted at the convention in August. He is the presumptive nominee. It is her choice, her decision, her timing.

    [ Parent ]
    OK, But (none / 0) (#207)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:00:19 PM EST
    I think that you are missing what is going on here. She has accepted the idea as veep and is focusing on what is good for the party right now, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards has not conceded yet (none / 0) (#226)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:08:58 AM EST
    y'know, and he took many months to even release his delegates.  He's so defiant, right?

    This is politics, this is how it's done.  I thought from your comments here that you were more knowledgeable.  Now at least I know better.

    [ Parent ]

    Right (none / 0) (#229)
    by squeaky on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    That is hilarious. Was the front page headline of the NYT the same when had basically dropped out of the race, as the one today?

     

    Obama Clinches The Nomination



    [ Parent ]
    The terms are very carefully used (none / 0) (#242)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:10:53 AM EST
    even if misstated by media.  Note that Clinton's announcement says that she will "express support" for Obama.  If you don't see the parsing, you don't want to see it.  So wait and see if she releases her delegates -- as, again, it took Edwards months to do, and without all this pressure, which is very stupid of Obama to do.  


    [ Parent ]
    I have to go (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by cal1942 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:33:11 PM EST
    with BTD.

    I really can't see how the 'defiant' descriptor is in any way sexist.

    Churchill was defiant in the face of the Nazi juggernaut.

    It's a good thing and certainly neuter gender.

    [ Parent ]

    I agree with bostonboomer: (none / 0) (#81)
    by dotcommodity on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:56:43 PM EST
    in the misogynistic context that we are living through now, where Olbermann implies some man needs to take her into a room and rough her up to show her her place (or murder her) and yesterday Tweety says of the vp idea..."but can she obey?Do you know what I mean: Can she obey? Would she be able to be obedient?"

    the obsession with putting her in her place...like even the DNC hacking Democracy on Saturday...after there was the gleefull reporting on how Obama is the new boss...quite apart from the seedy image of backroom machine politics, theres that image of domination

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (none / 0) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:04:47 PM EST
    I do not agree but I'll consider it.

    [ Parent ]
    In opposition to the desired deferring immediately (none / 0) (#215)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:06:03 PM EST
    Last night, on CNN, Toobin talked about her "deranged narcissism" in her reasonable speech when she HAD won the popular vote in TWO of Three CNN scenarios (the only other one giving him "Uncommitted" which one cannot do with state-certified votes).

      The DNC doesn't want to 'recognize' the votes in Michigan, but they apportioned delegates and did recognize that people voted and then gave Obama 4 of her delegates while pressuring SDs who wanted to wait and see, to decide NOW for what to them was the obvious, deserving candidate.  Obama, on his part, had his campaign calling the SDs to say that to break for him before the primaries ended would mean their move would be meaningful "and remembered."

      So, she won the popular vote in the scenarios that count state-certified results as well as caucus estimates calculated to his favor (in the 4 states where they don't present votes).

    The Guardian's Michael Tomasky complained last night:

    "But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite."

    At least there are a couple of excellent rebuttals there from commenters, though most agree with him.  And that's what she's fighting -- the mindset they are not even aware of, that she should have immediately, despite the long campaign that ended in virtually a tie but also a popular vote win for her, "embraced" him as I just heard from Olbermann and Maddow, and endorsed him, instead of saying a focused Thank You to her supporters, during which she had a tribute to Obama's accomplishments to begin the speech.

      As I've said, she has never been seen as a valid candidate since before Ohio, but she wound up with all these votes, while he lost most of the states since March and lost a few of them by humongous margins to her, and just last night, So. Dakota, which was an expected win for him just a week ago -- all of which should be a source of concern for the Democrats in November.  And it probably was, so the DNC rushed everyone, essentially, to support him now.

      Most sensible people should know that it is a complex situation and there is no clear obvious winner except for the DNC making and bending rules in Obama's favor but they wanted her to recognize his historic candidacy at the earliest opportunity, while thanking her own supporters at the end of a long race, while they gave her no credit whatsoever for her own historic candidacy.

      She has been minimalized and ridiculed for even being in the race for several months and on a daily basis.  It continues.  

      Yes, 'defiant' might be a way to describe that speech if you were expecting extreme and sudden deference and did not see them as equal candidates over the long run of this primary.

      It's sad.

    [ Parent ]

    Excellent post (none / 0) (#232)
    by ricosuave on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:39:14 AM EST
    The media and the Obama campaign have been acting like Obama obtained an overwhelming victory months ago, and that she has been a gadfly to him ever since.  I reminds me of Bush's "mandate" after the 2000 election.  There just seems to be no recognition that (by nearly every measure) more democrats wanted her to be the nominee, or that it was EXTREMELY close.

    I go to the Texas state democratic convention on Friday.  I am still happy to be signing in for Hillary, and I know that plenty of others feel the same way.  Everyone on TV acts like Hillary has some obligation to Obama, but if Obama wants to win the election he needs to woo us a lot more than he has so far.

    [ Parent ]

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:29:38 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You've got the definition used in English n/t (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:30:34 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    On the contrary (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:29:00 PM EST
    When Hillary was said to be "defying the odds" by staying in after Iowa, it was put in terms of admiration mostly.

    Those who wanted to put her down didn't call her defiant, they called her petulant.

    [ Parent ]

    Wrong (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by Laertes on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:51:26 PM EST
    Winston Churchill personified defiance.  There's not a damn thing that's womanly about him.

    A famous epigraph of his:

    In War: Resolution
    In Defeat: Defiance
    In Victory: Magnanimity
    In Peace: Good Will

    Google "Churchill" and "defiance."

    Your understanding of this word is flawed.

    [ Parent ]

    Defiance is (none / 0) (#151)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:28:38 PM EST
    a questionable word in terms of context.

    It has positive and negative connotations and can be used as a sledgehammer or a fabulous asset.

    Words have meaning.  Different strokes for different folks.

    [ Parent ]

    Context Here (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:31:20 PM EST
    Clinton has kept her supporters committed to her by demonstrating her fire and toughness - her commitment to playing the political game on her terms.

    [snip]

    You can call it what you want, admire it or despair about it, but IF Hillary Clinton wants to be VP, it is reasonable to argue that she needed to flex her political muscles.

    Nothing sexist given the context of BTD's framing, imo.

    [ Parent ]

    Honey, in a man's world, (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:37:03 PM EST
    I'll have to think about what it is he's trying to get across.

    You see, defiant and ambitious and all those rough-and-tumble words are wonderful attributes if one is male, I've noticed.

    Not so much if you belong to the fairer sex.  :)

    [ Parent ]

    Not Just Male (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:42:07 PM EST
    But important to have as a world leader. Most great leaders, regardless of their sex, are able to display so called feminine or so called masculine traits when appropriate.

    [ Parent ]
    Anyway, I'm toying (none / 0) (#179)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:44:01 PM EST
    with you.  It's been way too obvious that the boyz don't get it or pretend not to.  Some of them have wives, so I have a feeling they do get it.

    But this is politics.  The person who remains standing and unruffled is Hillary Clinton.  I'm sure that pisses off those who don't have what she does, those who are protected and coddled.

    The bubble people, for example...

    [ Parent ]

    Yes Sounds Right (none / 0) (#196)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:56:11 PM EST
    The fact that Hillary is standing and unruffled is exactly what we need right now, and when I say we I mean the Democratic party.

    She is a super smart Pol, and knows that this is not about her, and that it is about her and who she is bringing to the table.

    [ Parent ]

    For men, 'defiance' in a woman is never good. (none / 0) (#216)
    by andrys on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 08:09:15 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Some men. My spouse loves my (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:19:45 AM EST
    defiance against great odds, my tilting at every windmill in my way -- and in anyone's way.  Of course, he also thinks I'm gorgeous, so the man's judgment may be a bit impaired. :-)

    I can understand the concern for context -- but, even with the anonymity of the 'Net and the problems that can occur from written communication without intonation, the context can best be construed by considering the source.  

    And the source is Armando, and his record has been clear here.  If I came up against a windmill, I'd want him tilting at it with me.  (But he has to be my sidekick Sancho Panza.  I get to be Don Quixote.  I suspect that by the time we were done verbally jousting over the job descriptions, the windmill would have collapsed from old age, anyway.)

    [ Parent ]

    Disagree (none / 0) (#223)
    by squeaky on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 09:40:26 PM EST
    Unless you are talking about a woman defying a man that wants her to do something. The same would be true for a man who defies a woman that he is close to, bad news.

    But in this case many men are super supporters of Hillary and the fact that she is defiant is good for them. Makes them feel empowered that she is taking her time on this, aka being defiant.

    What you are talking about seems more about power than gender, unless I am misunderstanding your comment. And yes, usually the ones at the top of the heap in the US are rich white men.

    [ Parent ]

    The defiant Ones. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:53:56 PM EST
    Plucky little Poland.  Dunkirk Spirit.

    Nothing sexist.

    [ Parent ]

    A show of hands (none / 0) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:58:29 PM EST
    Of those of you who are arguing that "defiance" used in this context isn't sexist, which of you is a woman?

    (I suspect I'll see no hands).

    If people are offended with the term, what's so wrong with changing it to something else?  

    [ Parent ]

    I would prefer an explanation (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:03:50 PM EST
    to be added to the show of hands.

    [ Parent ]
    Context is key (5.00 / 1) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:15:31 PM EST
    I agree with BTD.  I did not hear the original statement about Clinton's defiance.  Was it one of the MSM dorks, or was the first time it came up from BTD.

    I would have a hard time hearing anyone of the newsmedia persuasion say 'defiance' without thinking they mean 'b*tch'.  But absent their unsavory influence, defiance leans more toward Churchill than  petulance.

    I could be wrong (often am).  But if it is context and usage, let's not let those knuckleheads of the MSM transform a perfectly good word into a gender-charged slur.

    [ Parent ]

    Character to the defiance (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:16:15 PM EST
    See the Churchill epigram.

    In defeat: defiance.  

    heh. why not? She's literally be railroaded out of politics by the press.

    [ Parent ]

    It's kind of hard not to (none / 0) (#123)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:14:01 PM EST
    go with the negative connatation when you also keep using conciliatory.

    Your use of the word defiance comes across as calling her position one of arrogance and being contemtuous, a position of misplaced superiority.

    Conciliatory? expecting Clinton to step back out of the scene and be passive.

    [ Parent ]

    What's acceptable lingo to express (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:24:46 PM EST
    the obviously non-sexist opinions BTD holds, according to you?  Make sure it's not racist or antisemitic or ... while you're at it.

    [ Parent ]
    How about (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by waldenpond on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:33:32 PM EST
    she has earned the right to make decisions for herself.  Not the media, not politicians, not bloggers. Clinton has been campaigning for over a year, it's her mothers birthday today.  I agree with Jeralyn on this one... people need to back off.  

    People have been ascribing traits and motives to her all of this time.  Maybe, just maybe, some of us get sick of the.. I don't know, what does Michelle Obama call it?  the tone.

    She took her moment and a moment for her supporters.  Some people are just going to have to get over it.

    [ Parent ]

    That decision was defiant (in English) (none / 0) (#164)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:36:47 PM EST
    but umm see the NYT.

    [ Parent ]
    This is it (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by befuddled on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:32:18 PM EST
    That she is being defiant when she is expected to be conciliatory. For women it's a red flag. Not socialized to be defiant as children, maybe later professionally.

    I saw something else--not defiance, but knowing this isn't the time to do anything other than what she did, say "stay tuned."

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, please see up at comment #227 (none / 0) (#228)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:22:31 AM EST
    Sorry the reply is upthread, but I'm late to the thread and raised my hand, made my comment, prior to seeing your request here.   Oh, and allow me to add that a sexist might have used, say, "spunky."  Ugh. :-)

    [ Parent ]
    Teresa (5.00 / 2) (#203)
    by Brookhaven on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:59:28 PM EST
    I have to agree with BTD, when I heard the MSM use the word defiant, the images that immediately came to mind was "rebel" "bold" which are words of strength.  So, I don't have a problem at all with BTD's use of the word.  Other women may feel differently.  

    But, I agree that words used in this primary season have had special signifiance.  I wrote a post yesteday about the negative words used to describe this or that about HRC (plots, grabs, threats, etc.) while using positive words for Obama throughout the campaign. And, it's made me angry and very weary.  But, I didn't have the same reaction when the MSM described her speech as defiant.  I know they didn't mean it as a compliment but I was elated after the speech and defiant myself after hearing them call her that.

    I was, however, livid, watching Twetty on Morning Joe this morning.  He was speaking out of his arse as per usual about HRC as they spoke about the VP spot.

    Tweety once again (this guy never learns not to stick his foot in his mouth although I agree with Somerby that Tweety is playing dumb with his horrific sexist remarks) used degrading language to describe why HRC may not take the VP spot.

    He said the VPOTUS has to "obey" and be "subserviant" to the POTUS and asked rhetorically: "Would Hillary obey or be subservient"  Right out of the Taming of the Shrew it seems for Tweety.  I have never heard "obey" or "subservient" used to describe the VPOTUS's duties in comparison to the POTUS'. Tweety deliberately (because it's a pattern with him especially when discussing HRC) used sexist language to describe what HRC wouldn't be able to do (as other women would?).  

    If anyone saw this this morning, they know what I'm talking about.  He just never lets up with these loaded and insulting and demeaning comments leveled against HRC.  I loathe him.

    As an aside, while we are on this topic.  I am also fed up with the phrase "What does Hillary want"?  This harkens back to that old sexist Freudian chestnut "What does woman want"?  

    Imo, that would never have been said or posed had Hillary been Henry.  No matter how much has changed for women, some  deep-ceded masculine fear of strong women has not been quelled for some men.  Hillary wants to be POTUS.  Hillary has said all along that she would stay in the race until all people voted and she wanted all people's votes to count.  What is so difficult for some of these people to get.  She also needs time to herself for a few days to decide what she will do.  Why can't she be given that without her being questioned up and down nonstop because she's plotting or pushing her way on the ticket or dissing Obama, and on and on.  

    I said last night and several times, HRC needs some space to make a decision.  She's earned it for pity sake.  Whatever she decides, I'm there supporting her.  She's got more grace in her eyelash than these blowfish have collectively.

    [ Parent ]

    This comment is sexist n/t (none / 0) (#116)
    by rilkefan on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:09:48 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Well, I'm most definitely female (none / 0) (#178)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:43:49 PM EST
    and I don't see it as sexist, particularly not coming from BTD and in the context he used it.  From Tweety with a snicker and/or a sneer, that'd be something different.

    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (none / 0) (#213)
    by Laertes on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    Defiance is a strong word, connoting strength and steadfastness in the face of fearsome odds.

    Some people think it's unacceptable to use this word when talking about a woman.

    And those of us who disagree are sexist?

    My friend, you have it 100% backwards.

    [ Parent ]

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:21:46 PM EST
    The big smile on her face when she said asked "what does Hillary want?" suggested to me that she had something up her sleeve. I think you're right that the most obvious reason--and the most effective--was to shut down the "bit*h is dead" talk. She is relevant and her supporters are vibrant and viable, even though her path to nomination is closed.

    I thought (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by kmblue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:00:19 PM EST
    When Hillary said "You know, people are always asking, 'what does Hillary Clinton want?'"  she was poking fun at Freud's famous question.

    Now there'sa dog whistle.

    I had to laugh.

    Forgive me if this has been mentioned before.

    [ Parent ]

    I said just the same thing earlier (none / 0) (#230)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:34:12 AM EST
    but kmblue, you never have to ask for forgiveness from me.  I absolutely agree -- women know that it's the age-old question, just what do we want?  It was a dog-whistle that most men wouldn't get, and I loved her for it.

    Btw, my answer to the question -- teaching history and women's studies, I often get asked -- is that we in this country explained in considerable detail just what we want a long time ago . . . 160 years ago next month, at the first women's rights convention in the history of the world, which issued the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments at Seneca Falls.

    An interesting exercise for students is having them work through the list, the platform for the women's rights movement, to see how many of those goals for a truly progressive country have been achieved.  The answer?  Not good.  Consider the treatment of Clinton and women in this campaign in the context of the conclusion written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton 160 years ago:

    In entering upon the great work before us, we anticipate no small amount of misconception, misrepresentation, and ridicule. . . .


    [ Parent ]
    I think it's something else, (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by TomP on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:22:13 PM EST
    but I'm just guessing.

    I think it's about respect.  She mentioned it about her voters, but she also has been disrespected by the media and many Obama supporters, although not necessarily by Obama (I understand that is debateable).  People have been screaming at her to quit since February and she stayed and fought.

    I think she just wants to leave on her own terms a little.  

    Respect.  She deserves it.

    Both Obama and Clinton are decent folks, in my view.  Both deserve respect.  I think that's her point.  Don't rush me off the stage.  I earned my place.

    If Hillary accepts VP, (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:23:54 PM EST
    I will be heartbroken.  I've really come to admire and respect her.  I don't see how she could take the job and keep her own self-repect.  And it would make me sad not to be able to vote for her.
    I Don't Think You Need To Worry About It (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:07:00 PM EST
    IMO Obama will not offer Hillary the position of VP unless there is some type of agreement in advance that she will turn it down. All indications are that there will be no unity ticket.

    [ Parent ]
    I keep going back and forth on this. (none / 0) (#26)
    by honora on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:31:20 PM EST
    I will not vote for Obama (unless Hillary is the VP).  I owe her that much respect.  If she thinks that she can make a difference and a valuable contribution, then who am I a lady in Baltimore to disagree.  Then, I say that I can not vote for Obama no matter who is the VP!  She should not sell women out.  She should watch him fail in November, let us all say 'we told you so', and wait until 2012.  Rescue us all from under the bus, and save the Democratic Party. When I decide, I will be better at arguing my position.

    [ Parent ]
    I feel pretty much that way. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Teresa on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:40:38 PM EST
    I don't want her on the ticket because I am absolutely sick of the bashing. The media is disgusting and some of Obama's surrogates last night were just as bad. I don't particularly want to hurt Obama (he's just a politician just like Hillary) but I don't want her to save the party that didn't lift a finger to defend her.

    I know that makes me bitter. My bitterness is not toward Obama, though. It's the party. They don't deserve her support (in this particular election, anyway). I do think that if Hillary is told to do it for the party, she will. Maybe she does want it. It would be historical and no one has earned it more. It's really tough for me to deal with.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary needs to keep her position of (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Aqua Blue on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:42:08 PM EST
    strength.  To be the first woman Vice Presidnt of the Unitd States, the second most important position in the world, is nothing to throw away.    And, it sets her up for  President eight years from now.     Democrats will remain in control if Obama wins and Hillary needs to be next in line.

    Hillary has to strike while the iron is hot.  The enthusiasm and excitement that exists now may not come again.

    Hillary's strength and fortitude under pressure is astounding.   The Media and her own Party have bashed her and yet she stands...she doesn't fold.    Bless her for her tenacity!   And, I support her, whatever her decision

    [ Parent ]

    Rangel says (none / 0) (#53)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:46:27 PM EST
    no

    'Rangel Frustrated With Clinton
    One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's "most loyal backers on Capitol Hill is voicing frustration about the position she has put her supporters in," ABC News reports.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) "said he thinks it is time for Clinton to publicly clarify what she is doing and allow her supporters to switch their allegiance to Barack Obama."

    Said Rangel: "Unless she has some good reasons -- which I can't think of -- I really think we ought to get on with endorsements (of Obama) and dealing with what we have to deal with... so we can move forward."

    'Rangel Frustrated With Clinton
    One of Sen. Hillary Clinton's "most loyal backers on Capitol Hill is voicing frustration about the position she has put her supporters in," ABC News reports.

    Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) "said he thinks it is time for Clinton to publicly clarify what she is doing and allow her supporters to switch their allegiance to Barack Obama."

    Said Rangel: "Unless she has some good reasons -- which I can't think of -- I really think we ought to get on with endorsements (of Obama) and dealing with what we have to deal with... so we can move forward."

    [ Parent ]

    She has a few good reasons (5.00 / 7) (#76)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:55:34 PM EST
    One, today is her mothers birthday  :)

    Two, she wants some of her agenda to be dealt with.

    Three, she's giving her supporters some time to adjust. And not go away quietly because we DO count. Conceding last night may have been too much too handle.

    Four, She said it would be over by the 6th didn't she? Well she does have an event planned on Friday. . . . I think she has her game plan and everyone should just freakin' back off her  :)

    [ Parent ]

    The first reason (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by riddlerandy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:57:38 PM EST
    is good enough for me

    [ Parent ]
    Agree :) (none / 0) (#121)
    by nycstray on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:13:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Apparently Rangel is completely clueless (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:53:46 PM EST
    or else when he says "supporters" he only means the bigtime politicians.  The exit polls make it clear that between 1/3 to 1/2 of Hillary's supporters will not vote for Obama anyway.


    [ Parent ]
    Remember, the media is rewriting ... (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:25:20 PM EST
    the rules in this cycle.

    In other close nominating contests there were no great conciliatory gestures at this point.  In fact, for Reagan in '76 and Kennedy in '80, this issue did not even come up till the convention.

    Don't be seduced by the media's playbook.

    Turn off the cable news, pick up a book, and realize Clinton is just following the precedent for a candidate in her position.

    Well, I would be quite shocked (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:27:14 PM EST
    if she took it to the convention. She, Bill, and pet parakeet all know that she's not going to be nominated there.

    Her leverage weakens with time, and whatever she wants to get, she's wise to try and get now.

    [ Parent ]

    On what do you ... (none / 0) (#32)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:35:39 PM EST
    base this statement?

    Her leverage weakens with time

    Politics doesn't work that way.

    The are a lot of assets that the Clinton campaign holds that Obama needs to win the GE, these will become more valuable not less as the weeks go on.

    [ Parent ]

    Because she's still relevant within (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:38:26 PM EST
    the context of this race now. Her supporters are not receding into caves.

    With time, out of sight, out of mind.

    [ Parent ]

    Hillary's a very talented politician ... (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:47:55 PM EST
    and a student of political history.

    Watch, wait, and learn.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm surprised to hear this from you. (none / 0) (#189)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:52:17 PM EST
    I know people think this is all going to go away.  But Obama hasn't proven himself to the rest of the country.

    What's going to happen that changes that?

    Hmmmm?

    [ Parent ]

    They both roll the dice by waiting (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by indiependy on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:53:42 PM EST
    Even though these GE polls are pretty speculative this far out, they've clearly been show to be valuable within the context of media message. As the new ones begin to roll out it could show a dip in his support and numbers vs McCain, thus giving her leverage tangible numbers. However, it's also possible that they show that all Democrats are focused on is coming together and getting back the White House. In that case his numbers vs McCain would swell and her leverage would be somewhat diminished. We could see an interesting game of political chicken play out.

    [ Parent ]
    Rules only for women: Even Edwards (none / 0) (#231)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:38:38 AM EST
    in this media cycle was not hounded this way.  He still hasn't conceded, has he?

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe... (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by k on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:25:58 PM EST
    or maybe she just thinks, along with 18 million of her supporters, that she is the better General Election candidate. Maybe she thinks that after a summer of Obama being hammered by the Republican 527's the party elite will wake up and switch their votes in Denver.

    I don't really know what she is thinking but personally, I hope she's looking to Denver and not to becoming Obama's second fiddle.

    I do not think she thinks that (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:27:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    You're probably right... (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by k on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:58:55 PM EST
    I'm just trying out that whole Hope thing.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you're right (none / 0) (#41)
    by ccpup on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:41:24 PM EST
    She has no intention of playing second fiddle to a man who openly despises and disrespects her.  How could she, even as VP, get anything DONE with someone who cuts her off at the knees any chance he gets?

    What I think -- and it's supported by my more politically connected friends in DC and elsewhere -- is that she knows what's out there about Obama and his connections and she knows it ain't good.  Once that starts leaking, he becomes a candidate wounded beyond repair and McCain waltzes to an easy victory.

    Unless ...

    Unless she's still officially "in" eg. having not conceded and the SDs and the Party has the option to switch back to her to save their hides when their Golden Boy turns out to be made of tin.  

    If (when?) Rezko turns lily white and shakes at the thought of a possible 300 year sentence and realizes he'd rather flip than serve that kind of time, Obama (you know, the 17 year friend who conveniently disappeared?) -- and the Dems -- could be looking at an immense storm of bad press that would make White Water and Kenneth Starr look like a day at the ice cream truck.

    Hillary's no fool and she's biding her time for the inevitable Bad News Shoe to drop.  But she's not hanging around to be VP.  In an Obama Administration, she'd have much more power as a NY Senator.

    [ Parent ]

    That doesn't add up (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Demi Moaned on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:47:09 PM EST
    As Ian Welsh over at FDL said apropos of the assassination brouhaha:
    It was an odd accusation, because even if Clinton had stepped out of the nomination battle and then Obama had been assassinated, it was unthinkable that anyone but her would be nominated. I can't think of any scenario in which the second place finisher who received almost 50% of the vote, wouldn't have received the nod. Clinton didn't need to stay in the nomination battle to be the nominee in such a scenario. It made less than no sense.

    I think it applies with equal force under the scenario you envision.

    [ Parent ]
    I honestly think the Democrats would (none / 0) (#198)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:56:53 PM EST
    not nominate Hillary if Obama has to step down.  I think they are trying to destroy her completely.


    [ Parent ]
    We need a united party (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:27:16 PM EST
    to have any chance of winning this year.  Obama is not going to get enough crossover votes to win without the help of the Clinton Democrats.  Maybe the pre-Wright, post-racial candidate had a hope of doing so.  At this point no one but Chris Bowers thinks there will be a wholly new coalition that can afford to discard the unwanted parts of the previous one.

    What Hillary brings to the table is not really the 18M voters - most of them will make up their own minds, and frankly, it's ludicrous to think there's any scenario under which Hillary will not endorse Obama in the end.  But the Clinton machine is powerful, the fundraising network is large, the influence is genuine.  The fact that Obama managed to build an operation that could outdo all that is truly impressive, but it doesn't mean he can simply throw away all the Clinton connections.  It's going to take an all-hands-on-deck approach to win in November.

    It gets a whole lot harder for Obama to win this election if someone other than Hillary is the VP nominee.

    I think clinotn was making that point (none / 0) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:30:30 PM EST
    She is not "invisible."

    [ Parent ]
    You would think (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM EST
    that all of this would go without saying to folks at the highest levels of politics, but maybe not.

    It really seems to me that Obama's efforts to take total control of the party - discouraging contributions to outside organizations like VoteVets, and the like - suggest that he really does believe he can have it all, that he can remake the entire party in his image from top to bottom.

    That suggests to me that he feels he doesn't need the Clinton networks, and that she won't be the VP.  Who knows, I don't claim to know everything, but I don't think it's a smart move.  Winning in November is the whole ballgame in my book.

    [ Parent ]

    My instincts (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:20:46 PM EST
    suggest to me that the press really really hate Clinton.  Anyone want to challenge that?

    Okay, no.

    So they are trying to make sure Obama doesn't pick her--even though polling and returns suggest she's very popular and she would be an easy effective way to put the party back together.

    How could theypreclude a nice quick kiss and make up session?  Demonstrate to Obama that he'll lose his press suckups if he picks her.  

    What you get is a dilemma for Obama the pres or the Hillary voters?


    [ Parent ]

    Maybe the media (none / 0) (#197)
    by pie on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:56:33 PM EST
    don't want the dems to win in November.

    Anyone want to argue against that?

    [ Parent ]

    If he picks her, will Obama lose (none / 0) (#205)
    by Boston Boomer on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 07:00:16 PM EST
    his blogger supporters too?  I peeked into DK yesterday and they were posting viscious stuff about Hillary and how she must never be the VP.

    [ Parent ]
    The media seems to be making that (none / 0) (#153)
    by FlaDemFem on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:29:10 PM EST
    point too..CNN has a headline that says "Can Obama say no to Hillary VP?" Interesting. It looks like she may have the upper hand after all. Heh.

    [ Parent ]
    hehe (none / 0) (#191)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:53:28 PM EST
    rupert Murdoch gets on the telephone.  

    "No mate. I get to pick who that B__ B'stard picks. Not 'im. rupert bloody Murdoch that's oo."

    [ Parent ]

    True. Really there will be (none / 0) (#27)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    a lot of embittered supporters out there.  Activists sitting on their hands.  Perhaps a walk out at the convention.  He ought to choose her.  She also the most qualified, but I know qualifications are not what they used to be.

    [ Parent ]
    My take is she thinks she get help him win. (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:29:34 PM EST
    It's late, her supporters are locked in, it's an easy sale if he puts her on the ticket.  I've said I would vote for VP for the first and probably only time in my life with her on the ticket.  I honestly can't see why he wouldn't want to run with her.  

    I think it's correct that she can deliver (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:30:33 PM EST
    a lot of votes in November. That's important.

    [ Parent ]
    It's possible that's (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by RickTaylor on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:33:18 PM EST
    what's she's doing, but that's likely to generate more ill feeling than anything else. You even have Ed Rendell saying:

    "There's no bargaining. You don't bargain with the Presidential nominee. Even if you're Hillary Clinton and you have 18 million votes, you don't bargain."

    And Hilary Rosen saying

    "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."

    It's not just people with CDS, she's starting to loose some of her biggest supporters with these tactics.

    I predicted that Rendell would start (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by andgarden on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:37:28 PM EST
    throwing stones. Too bad.

    [ Parent ]
    Does not matter (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:42:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Yes, you did. I recall that (none / 0) (#233)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 12:42:07 AM EST
    and I trust you on all things Pennsylvanian, andgarden.  You're right -- Rendell runs off at the mouth, and thus he won't go farther in politics.  Too risky.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, some of Obama's supporters (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by masslib on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:39:28 PM EST
    disagree.  Dodd was just on TV calling Hillary a great Democrat, saying people ought to give her space and he could see why she wants the VP spot.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:45:19 PM EST
    Nice to see Dodd getting classy!  He was horrible to her during the campaign.

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, not... (none / 0) (#241)
    by mabelle55 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 02:06:52 AM EST
    Dodd is a respected and well-liked senator. I was surprised that he backed Obama - and disappointed; I was also ticked-off when he joined in with others in the boys' club and started pushing for her to get out of the race.

    Here is my (very unusual) take on something semi-related to this discussion: why people like Kennedy, Dodd, Hamilton, backed Obama early on and seemingly without any due respect given to HRC.

    1. They know that HRC is a respected and well-liked senator (she's ranked 9/100 for her legislative ability, her leadership, her ability to work across party lines). In other words, she's solid. So they back Obama - which seems dismissive - but is really counterintuitive.

    2. He's got really zero U.S. Senate experience but poses a threat with his rock-star status, AAs/youth/not altogether up-and-up connections in Chicago (read a: the guy's a pol, but still as green as a turnip about "real" politics.

    3. Dodd, Kennedy et al see their endorsement not so much as a 'dissing of HRC, but as a) "keeping your...enemies closer"; b) being out of the line of fire should anything come down to harm them; c) manipulation/malleability. They can't manipulate Clinton, but BHO is young/naive/idealistic and they think they can manipulate him (at the same time they are keeping their eyes on him - threat and all that...

    I spent 20 years in D.C. in various progressive positions (one which included drafting legislation and minor lobbying). D.C. - Congress -is a snakepit. If you don't play by da rulz, build up your chits, learn the backdoors, and build up seniority, you're nothing. And political winds shift rapidly.

    Also, it is a boys club - the most distinguished in the country (and probably one of the most distinguished in the world). Boys support boys.
    Can you imagine what a real "change" Clinton represented for most of these guys? Earth.shattering. I'd use a Tucker Carlson comment here, but I'm sure you've all heard it...

    Thus Dodd, Kennedy, etc. figured it was easier to teach/manipulate the 'guy' (since he already has, well, you know...). With Clinton, they'd have had to retool centuries of DINO behavior/attitudes. Tells you how far women have to go, yes?

    [ Parent ]

    See (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:41:48 PM EST
    Clinton is not arguing with those people.

    Her argument is about whether Obama wants to be elected or not.

    She is playing the political game on her own terms. Ed Rendell can say what he wants. Not his hand to play.  


    [ Parent ]

    Here's where you are wrong BTD (5.00 / 5) (#111)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:07:11 PM EST
    unless Obama horsewhips her and ends her politically, they will not give him good press.

    he's being dared into a trap by his media masters.

    Cut her off and lose her people.

    Make her your VP and you will get bad press.

     BTD, your press theory is getting tested again. His press honeymoon is over if he picks her as VP.
    The press gang know she is a serious intellectual and that Obama is a policy dilletant. A career liberal.

    He knowingly lied in the debates about all his policies, while all the other candidates had to stick to their history and principles (at great pains because they feared the MTP gotchas)  But Obama had a pass on all that. he could freely pander to anti-Israelis, or pro israelis, revive Harry and Louise and and then say he was for UHC,. Shift position as needed state by state on Nafta and never ever get called out on it and smirk as the press gotcha'ed other candidates for mere evolutions of policy.

    If he picks Clinton  he loses that free pass immediatly. She's the real thing and would really make some reforms happen. But if he doesn't pick her he'll lose in Ohio Penn, West Virginia, Missouri anyway.  

    I kinda think you've been playing a few games here and there with your VP speculation (benign ones in the pursuit of party unity hopefully).  It'll take me a few months to figure out what that game is though.
    You gotta know that press antipathy is a constant factor for Clinton.  obama's only hope is a compliant press.  I don't think they will let him pick her for the sake of unity.


    [ Parent ]

    That's an interesting theory, (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:14:04 PM EST
    and one that's not out of line, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Brilliant theory (none / 0) (#187)
    by catfish on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    never thought of it that way.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't follow (none / 0) (#84)
    by anydemwilldo on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:57:29 PM EST
    Politics is a game of cards built on mutual support.  Hillary can play any hand she holds, but people like Rosen and Rendell are, by this metaphor, her cards.  If they walk, her ability to force the issue is diminished: she's overplayed her hand.

    To pick a different metaphor: Those 18 million voters aren't zombies under her psychic command.  They're just people, most of whom made rational choices to support her based on their own observation, and what they heard from other corroborating sources like, again, Rendell and Rosen.  If the corroboration disappears, so will their support, over time.

    There aren't any absolutes here.  Just as it's Hillary's right to play her hand as forcefully as she wants, it's the right of everyone else in the party to walk to the other "side" (sigh) in protest.

    [ Parent ]

    Ed Rendell was important to Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 05:59:50 PM EST
    when Pa was on the table. Now? he does not matter.

    [ Parent ]
    And it is the right of supporters to take notes (none / 0) (#140)
    by nulee on Wed Jun 04, 2008 at 06:24:15 PM EST
    when they see people like Rendell bailing - for me that reinforced my support for HRC - so you describe only one side of the coin - the other is Rendell is taking a big risk too.  If he thi