Will HRC Spoil the Party?
I'm thrilled at the record Democratic turnouts across the country, and at the ground-breaking reality of the Democrats' two candidates. But I'm also becoming anxious at the prospect of a fight that could reduce the possibility of either of them entering the White House in January of 2009.
Is HRC willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination? With her win in Ohio and projected win in Texas, that seems so. In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, we had HRC's statement that both she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama doesn't. This is the first time in my memory that a major candidate in a primary has said that the other party's nominee would be a better president than his or her own primary opponent. We also had the outpouring of negative advertising from her campaign that both candidates had largely managed to avoid up to this point.
And while I can understand her decision -- bolstered by yesterday's results -- to fight on in this primary election, the reality is that she can only win by convincing large numbers of superdelegates to join her and re-engineering the Michigan and Florida primaries to her advantage, and then taking the fight all the way to the convention in August -- which if she gets that far, will be one of the most divisive in forty years.
I suppose I should not be surprised. If HRC has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was HRC who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was HRC who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of HRC's campaign.
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nations youth -- been so inspired. The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. HRC's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
Is HRC willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination? With her win in Ohio and projected win in Texas, that seems so. In the days leading up to the Ohio and Texas primaries, we had HRC's statement that both she and McCain have the experience to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama doesn't. This is the first time in my memory that a major candidate in a primary has said that the other party's nominee would be a better president than his or her own primary opponent. We also had the outpouring of negative advertising from her campaign that both candidates had largely managed to avoid up to this point.
And while I can understand her decision -- bolstered by yesterday's results -- to fight on in this primary election, the reality is that she can only win by convincing large numbers of superdelegates to join her and re-engineering the Michigan and Florida primaries to her advantage, and then taking the fight all the way to the convention in August -- which if she gets that far, will be one of the most divisive in forty years.
I suppose I should not be surprised. If HRC has experience in anything, it's in fighting when cornered. When Bill Clinton lost his governorship, it was HRC who commissioned Dick Morris to advise the Clintons on a no-holds-barred campaign to retake the governor's mansion. At the start of 1995, when Newt Gingrich and company took over Congress and the Clinton administration looked in danger of becoming irrelevant, it was HRC who installed Dick Morris in the White House, along with his sidekick Mark Penn, to "triangulate" by distancing Bill Clinton from the Democratic Party and moving the Administration rightward. (When Morris was subsequently discovered to have a penchant for the toes of prostitutes the White House dumped him but kept Penn on.) And now Mark Penn is the "chief strategist" of HRC's campaign.
The sad news is that whether the Clinton scorched-earth strategy ultimately succeeds or fails, it will have caused great harm. In the unlikely event it succeeds, the result will be a shame and not a little ironic. Barack Obama has breathed life into the Democratic Party, and into American politics, for the first time in forty years. Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nations youth -- been so inspired. The Clintons would prefer to write off Obamania as a passing fad, but the reality is that idealism and inspiration are necessary preconditions for positive social change. Nothing happens in Washington unless Americans are energized and mobilized to make it happen. HRC's tactics are the old politics the nation is recoiling from -- internal division and national fear. This only serves to deepen Americans' cynicism about politics, and makes social change all the harder to achieve.
posted by Robert Reich | 7:52 AM
127 Comments:
Stick to economics and populism, there are already enough "experts" giving the candidates advice.
You prefer Obama, fine, just don't try to justify this with all sorts of deep analysis.
If the two camps can't withstand the (fairly mild) attacks lobbed by each other how is the winner going to fare when the full swiftboat machine goes into action?
WELL PUT,BUT IT'S SAD ALSO,VERY SAD+SCARY
Good points and hopefully someone from the HRC campaign will listen, eventually.
This is the party that lost a presidential election in 2000 where someone other than the voters decided the outcome. Surely we would not allow such a thing to happen in selecting our nominee?
Well, Robert, I too am an Obama supporter, and I just have to hope you're wrong.
Yes, it's not great that Clinton is attacking Obama. But hey, Obama's attacked her health care plan in GOP-friendly ways too. (And some of his supporters have said stuff about her, too, like that she represents the old politics the nation is recoiling from of internal division and national fear). You realize, more Democrats voted in yesterday's primary in Texas than voted in the general for Kerry four years ago. Maybe this will get Democrats more interested in voting in the general election.
Not that your argument's implausible, but it's not inarguable, either. I hope that it doesn't work out that way.
As a young American who grew up upnder the Bush/Clinton monarchy for the past 20 years, I can't stomach seeing 4 more years of White House nepotism. I think I speak for most other 20-something year olds who say "enough" already, we can only hope HRC tailspins over these next few weeks and concedes to Obama for the sake of our party's future.
What would lead anyone to believe that the Clintons are the least bit interested in "positive social change"? Now that Poppy Bush is Bill's BFF and Hillary's busily channeling Eva Peron, they're both beyond compromised.
It is not only appalling, but it is just plain disgusting for HRC to say - not suggest, but say - that McCain is more prepared to be president than Obama. What is she thinking?
Someone to whom she would listen - and I'm not sure there is any such person - needs to tell her she has responsibility for not electing a Republican, just because she cannot get the nomination. And as for the phone that is ringing in the night, why the hell does she let it keep ringing and ringing??? Color me disgusted!
I was a John Edwards supporter. When he stepped down, I knew only one thing for sure: I don't want more to the same old, same old and that meant I would support Obama. After HRC's foolish remark, I am quite sure she is not ready for the responsibity of being President!
I agree with your analysis that HRC is running the risk of a floor fight at the convention. Personally, I hope she does. Let me explain: Dems well remember---as you point out---what happened to the party in Congress after Bill's first term. I say to Hillary.....go ahead, show the world how YOU intend to divide the party as your husband did. We haven't lost our memories of the
90's, and we're smarter now. Obama's supporters don't need Hillary as much as she needs him; a floor fight means her people will cave towards Obama in the interest of the party whether she likes it or not! Where else can they go, but towards Obama? And yes, I AM a Obama supporter.
If HRC obtains the nomination with less delegates and popular votes -- and she probably has the machine to do so -- the inevitable result will be black folks staying home instead of voting in the general election, or even possibly deciding that they can best amplify their voice through the Republican party. HRC is the RNC's dream-come-true. God bless you HRC!
The real signs of hope are that so many voters are interested in politics and in voting. I was waiting to board a plane last week and heard a lot of different people talking politics with each other. We can take back this country if enough voters go to the polls and vote democratic. Let's bring back the word liberal as a compliment rather than an insult.
At this point I would be happy with either candidate.
I don't understand though how Hillary is a recipient of favors due to nepotism. Nepotism implies that the candidate has no qualifications other than being related to someone in a position of power. She is an elected senator in New York for two terms.
Oh, Professor -- I am ill with dread. Thank you for writing about this today.
I think you are greatly overstating your case. This is a day for spinning though, so I suppose I can forgive.
Clinton does not have the ability to bring down Obama. Only he does. He lost these most recent elections, she did not win them. He waffled on many issues and had many missteps including misrepresentation on the NAFTA issue and allowing himself to be defined by others by not responding. He needs to suck it up to be President because Republicans will crucify him even if McCain runs a clean election. ie, McCain won't control the party hacks.
If he is going to win the general, he needs to learn to deal with these issues NOW rather against McCain when it's too late. He will rise to the occasion or he won't. His inexperience is showing. Washington is a big, bad place and he will either realize that now or he won't make it. Clinton already realizes it. And, she can play that game. Now so must Obama because the forces that be play for keeps.
You are absolutely right Dr. Reich!
Why aren't Howard Dean, Al Gore, John Edwards, and the Democratic elders taking Hillary aside and telling her she's crossed a line? This economy, and our country can't take 4 more years of conservative lies and bankrupt policies.
Al Gore and Bill Bradley had a rough primary fight over issues, but it wasn't a knock down, drag em in the mud, win at the expense of the party and country, war like HRC is doing.
Dear Mr. Reich,
I have an inveterate dislike of aggressive dynasty in government positions of power even if it is not based on DNA progeny. You can almost smell the arrogance of Entitlement and Establishment of those you become addicted to the citadels of power. Hillary and Bill are no exceptions. She likes to tag Obama with the label of being a naive inexperienced neophyte in the ugly, demonizing game of politics. The fact that she places this skill as a self-defining qualification for leadership is appalling. It's the very reason I think our country needs a refreshing change from this type of "denigrating others while self-immolating oneself" political culture.
For me, Obama shows the highest promise for real change and is the least corrupted by the system. I think this gives him (with his amazingly broad appeal)the base to merge the best of our conservative and liberal ideals in finding clever, bi-partisan solutions to the soaring debt dynamic permeating all facets of our society -- typified by a casino-like credit card addiction, rampant spending with No Savings, and cascading government deficit spending on many of the wrong things. All this is crunching the economic prospects of lower and middle class America. Obama's been there.
His life experience and keen originality give him the leadership qualities that more than match Hillary Clinton's or John McCain's experience in the bureaucracy of government.
Of course all media polls up to now have indicated that Obama is more feared by the McCain camp than
Hillary. With Hillary's marginal win in Texas and larger expected wins in Ohio and Rhode Island, I won't be surprised to hear pundits suddenly jump ship and say that Hillary has the experience to beat McCain. Such are the winds of convenient change in politics.
As Bill Clinton slyly said, Obama is a 'roll of the dice.' I'll take that gamble with someone who has come from nowhere to magna cum laude at Harvard Law School, to being a credible Presidential candidate... with someone demonstrating an unassuming, natural, gift for sensing what's out-of-balance with our society and our need to come together on some huge problems.
The lobbyists will certainly have less influence over his priorities and plans to help those being hurt most by the economic mess we are in today. He's already shown his genuine capabilities in his campaign organization and formidable, innovative money-raising success.
The vast majority of Americans living abroad belonging to the Democratic Party apparently feel the same way as 65% of them have voted for Obama.
F.T., The Netherlands
I am, as they say in Texas, a "yellow dog Democrat" (I'd rather vote for an old yellow dog than a Republican - though I live in Pennsylvania). But if HRC somehow manages to circumvent the inspiration and passion of so many voters who have responded to Barack Obama, I wil be forced to sit out the presidential election for the first time in my life. I will not vote for her or Senator McCain.
I am mystified by two points her campaign continues to make and that the political pundits seem to accept. First, where are her
"35 years of experience"? Where is her participation in "lots of elections"? The woman won two senate elections in which the way was paved for her, for pete's sake. This is dynasticism in its ugliest form. She is no more the first serious woman candidate for president than I am (I am a 54 year-old female)! Why doesn't "the media" call attention to this lie?
Second, why is she able to get away with claiming that because she has won the "big states" she is better able to win the general election? Why doesn't SOMEONE point out that most of her voters, as loyal Democrats, will vote for Senator Obama when he is the nominee, no matter what size state they live in? (Conversely, I am sure if HRC bulldozes her way to the nomination, she will lose many Obama supporters - new, young, African-American, or independent voters, and diehard anti-HRC voters like me - and LOSE to Senator McCain.)
It all is heartbreaking. We do not need more of what happened from 1992-2000.
Gee, you should have seen the HRC folks at our Dem. caucus last night in Austin, Texas. It felt like being in a room with Karl Rove devotees. Glares; challenges; insinuations of cheating and intimidation, all after a rather jolly, energetic sign up process. An out-of-state HRC hack launched a meaningless rules challenge that was apparently a tactic the campaign choose several days before the primary to try to delegitimize, or at least delay, the caucus count until HRC could claim the state. Yeah, it was hardball all right, and Obama has to know that to run with the big dogs, but you know, I'm sick to death of it. I'm a 58 year old WASP lady who's seen too many good public servants taken down by such tactics. The point to me is not to learn to play nasty and hope the ref doesn't catch you, the point is to play hard, play fair, and be proud that everyone's watching the game. How sad that after eight years of timidity, the Democratic Party has turned the dogs loose...on itself.
To those who think that Mr Reich is overstating his case - I voted for Obama in the primary, and after Hillary's antics, I will not vote for her in the general, under any circumstances.
And if she gets the nomination by "stealing" it, then I will also not vote for any Democrat in the general. I'll either vote Republican, or Green, or Libertarian, depending on the candidates.
So no, he's not overstating the case. I'm not the only person I know with this position.
And no, I'm not black, or a new voter. Nor am I especially independent as a voter, having mostly voted Democratic for the last decade.
Way to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Democrats!
Once again I will say one more time I was interested in Senator Obama, until I heard about Rezko and obama their 20 year year friendship.
I also do not like all the swearing, and cussing many supporters on other blogs do regarding Senator Clinton,from Obama supporters, this does reflect on Obama's Campaign.
I am also disturbed at the lack of loyalty Robert Reich feels regarding the Clinton years, Wasn't he a part of it? He held a position within the administration. Did they not do good? Did Bill Clinton not leave our nation with a surplus, or is Robert Reich strictly an opportunist, you know a nice job, good title, looks great on his future resume or perhaps he is quite simply looking for another position in a Obama Adm.
I simply want an HONEST PRESIDENT. This is NOT OBAMA!
Well said sir.
Still, let's keep this in perspective: in the Beltway Primaries, O picked up 46 more delegates than HRC did (don't know if these included a few supers).
Last night, HRC picked up 5-15 more than BHO, even though this is spun as a big win.
But, if she were to win the nomination, this would be the first time in my life I'd even consider voting R.
Ok, I can't do it. But there are others who will.
This post has been removed by the author.
Diane B,
Perhaps you should read the rest of Mr Reich's blog before you call him those things. He has clearly said that the Clintons are no longer who they were when he was in the cabinet.
Also, that is exactly the reason Obama is getting the support that he is....loyalty to the COUNTRY, not to a person.
I applaud Mr Reich for calling out the antics of the Clinton campaign.
And before you wonder why I am justifying any of this, let me tell you about myself. I am a professional asian female, educated (working on grad school) and a resident alien with an active duty military spouse. I am speaking based on what I think America needs for its place in the world...
With the way the Clintons and the Party leaders are running this nomination, I see disaster ahead. Blacks are starting to say they will not vote for Hillary if she is the nominee. If blacks don't turn out in huge numbers, Hillary nor Barack can win.
Hillary has excavated the racial divide and made it a center piece of her attack strategy against Obama. She can't put that genie back in the bottle.
Whatever happens at the convention, the Democratic Party as it is now organized has little future.
I'm a lifelong Democrat who has voted in every election since 1972 (McGovern).
Appreciate your ongoing comments on The Situation.
I think HRC has a greater chance for the nomination that you seem to. If she can repeat the big win in Ohio in Pennsylvania and if the party decides to revote in MI and FL -- this seems like a real possibility today -- and she wins convincingly there, and her total popular vote exceeds Obama, I think she is the nominee.
I disagree Obama made race an issue to win, I really believe this and please do not say I'm racist, I am of mixed heritage. Once again I'm not voting Obama.
I also was disappointed to see Robert Reich being paid by FOX!
Robert,
When you spoke earlier about your friend Bill Clinton and did not reference Hillary that you had a personal issue with Hillary.
America is tired of the Right Wing disaster. We are tired of the war in Iraq. We are tired of the detriment to the economy. We are ready for a change.
What your personal issue is causing you to miss is, Hillary is also breathing a new life into the Democratic Party as well, just as much or more so for Women and for Hispanics and this includes Youth. I don´t discount Obamaniacs passion. There is plenty of it. But the Right Wing disasters that inspired the roots of the passion is still there for those that support Obama or for those of us that support Hillary.
I was there at the Texas Caucus last night. The Obama supporters were primarily Black and yuppie upper class. The Hillary supporters were primarily women, Latinos. Both sides had youth. We were all excited and passionate and ready for change.
What good ole boys like you and Chris Matthews and the entire Right Wing conspirators don´t understand is, we like Hillary. No matter how much you and people like you demonize her, we like her. Her message is reaching us and we will support her until she wins in November. Like so many of us, she has resilience. She is not giving up and neither are we.
I like you Robert. I think you are brilliant. But your personal issue is blinding you from reality.
"Is HRC willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination? "
Well of course.
Unfortunately, it looks as though Govs. Granholm (a Clinton supporter) and Crist (hoping to set up an easy win for McCain) are perfectly happy to abet her scorched-earth campaign by seating or re-polling the delegates in their states. What a mess.
Time for someone to step in *cough* Howard Dean *cough* and put a stop to this MI/FL re-vote push BEFORE it begins. Otherwise, as we have seen, HRC has a knack for getting what she wants by bullying, whining, and bending the rules. Nipping this in the bud NOW is the only hope.
Dee & Diane B,
I hear what you say, but it doesn't matter. Black people have been the core group and the edge for winning in every single national Democratic victory since Kennedy. When whites left the Party for Reagan and Bush, blacks stayed.
Hillary can't win without us, and now she has said we aren't qualified, we aren't good Americans, you can't trust us.
Racist-yes!
From what I'm hearing, a growing number of black folks are saying if Hillary is the nominee, they will not vote for her (me too).
Why she would attack a key part of her base is crazy.
Clearly, this is all about Hillary and Bill.
Consultant
Hillary did not say that. Whoever told you she said this is lying. I know Robert would agree with me that she DID NOT say this. Hillary is a strong supporter of Human and Civil Rights and always has been.
I would gladly do the investigation for you. Provide me the link saying she said this. I am not associated with anyone´s campaigns so please allow me to do the research. I will provide you the results of my investigation right here on this blog.
Consultant quote:
Hillary can't win without us, and now she has said we aren't qualified, we aren't good Americans, you can't trust us
Dee,
I agree with you.
Hillary is a strong supporter of both Civil Rights and Human Rights and always has been. I am a Black Woman. I support Hillary. What I like best about her is the fact that she has stood strong against all odds. I voted for Hillary for Senator and she has been a great Senator. I will vote for her as President. I know she will win.
Thank you, Mr. Reich! One of the sad facts from last night is that the dem voters who would be happy to vote for "the other candidate" has been cut in HALF (down to less than 4 in 10 from 75%) since SC. Sen. Clinton has campaigned 100% negative recently. As a life-long dem., I will sit this one out if she somehow would be the nominee, and if the party loses people like me, they are indeed in bad shape for Novemeber. Likewsie, I would find it hard to believe that lower-income white women over 50 would feel comfortable voting fr Sen. Obama after Hillary has been telling them for months that Sen. Obama is not qualified and might even be somewhat muslim - who knows... Unthinkable, that we would let this happen to our party at this crucial time, with the Supreme Court etc at stake. I cannot understand Speaker Pelosi's arguments today. So, so sad....
Robert says....
"Is HRC willing to sacrifice that possibility in order to preserve a tiny possibility that she'll get the nomination?"
Absolutely. And it's becoming increasingly likely that the Clinton "machine" will maneuver her into the nomination. She masterfully plays the victim and aggressor at the same time. This has blindslided Obama and really puts him into a dilemma. If he stoops to her gutter politics and begins to really attack her, he only arouses gender sympathy not to mention sacrificies his positive message.
I'm afraid he's going to have to get in the gutter with her and bring up the litany of corrupt/dishonest/questionable activities of both Clintons.
The dems will self-destruct by nominating her. She won't have the huge advantage in women voters in the general that she has in the primaries. Women are turning out in far greater numbers to vote in the democratic primaries sometimes as high as 60% of all voters!
This gender advantage will disappear in the general. Women will still outnumber men but more like 51-49%. She won't be able to get away with the whining to draw sympathy.
Something tells me she'd rather be the first woman candidate to run for president even if it means losing just so she has this historical legacy. Forget anything about what would more appropriately advance the dem agenda.
Dee, Dee,
Why is that someone has to "tell" me this? I look at tv, listen to public radio, read newspapers, follow several blogs, look at YouTube and study each candidates' websites.
I follow the information and then I come to my own conclusions. I then talk to friends and colleagues.
I suggest you do the same. Start with google. Put in Hillary Obama Muslim, and see what you turn up. Do you see what I mean? Do YOUR homework.
Have a nice day.
Much as I appreciate your insight and wisdom, I, along with many of the women (old and young)I know, had a very different reaction than yours to Hillary's victories yesterday--we were thrilled. It has been inspiring to watch her fight so hard since the last round of primaries; inspiring to watch as she did not give in. Far from seeing the Clinton attack machine, we felt that we were watching the epic--and--effective fight of a superbly intelligent, deeply informed, and qualified woman. It's time for a woman in the White House; the economy needs her. In spite of the Obama attacks, she knows that the war and the economy are the same thing. I'll be glad to vote for Obama in eight years, but I want to vote *now* for Hillary as the Democratic candidate. And, of course, I vote.
Meanwhile, McCain is out there defineing the national debate. There is nothing Clinton and Obama can say about or against each other that isn't old and tiresome. The nomination should go to the one who best carries the battle to McCain from here on.
Professor Reich:
Thank you for your honesty. It appears to me that HRC knows that she has to drive up BHO's negatives to have a chance at victory and she is willing to do so. Can you imagine if Obama really wanted to do the same. Monica, cattle futures, billing records magically appearing when the statute of limitations runs, etc... I think the Clintons were treated badly and that their behavior in no way compares to the depths the current administration has brought us to. Nonetheless, I do not want to go back to there and I suspect there are many who feel the same way. I find the Clinton's lack of honesty and ethical lapses unacceptable. I will vote for McCain if she is given the nomination. He is flawed but I would rather hope for a Teddy Roosevelt than know I'm getting Nixon in drag.
Well put Mr.Reich. If Obama is not the candidate. I prefer to vote for Grandpa Munster than for a power hungry cheap Cathy Bates double.
This is about the arrogance of the baby boomers not realizing that their 15 mins is up.
As a Gen-X, I can see the boomers turn out to me the most arrogant selfish age group this country has had, and they will leave all their generational trash behind.
HRC is just the sel coronated queen of this garbage. If she becomes the next Prez. I hope she chokes on it. The damage she has done getting there, just like W Bush can only be paid back with the incredible bad karma.
For all the men who are revelling in bashing Hillary saying you prefer to vote for Nixon or Grandpa Munster, so! What´s new! You have voted for Nixon, W and will probably vote for Grandpa Munster (McCain) in the future! You will vote for a 100 more years in Iraq!
I guess it will take us women voters to get you out of this mess and out out of trouble!
Hillary 2008!
Dee,
Are you supporting Hillary because she's a woman or because you truly believe that she is the one who will bring America back to the stature it deserves?
Hillary should do the right thing for her party, and the county, and drop out of the race.
The number of delegates won by Obama -- who retains a strong lead -- show that she cannot win the nomination now without going even more negative.
Therefore, she cannot "win" now without dividing her party, and without alienating a very large segment of it.
The numbers show she cannot win unless she provokes a long and wasteful fight leading all the way up to the convention floor.
And then she'll still very likely lose.
So if she doesn't concede very soon, it can mean only one thing: It's all about her, and not about what's best for all.
Bob is right. Bottom line is, Hillary is messing with the party. She is being a spoiler. If she really were "one of us" she would see how great a chance we have with Obama to elect, through electrification of the electorate, a DEMOCRAT!
Come on people. You know Bob's right.
Hillary is an opportunist that don't care who she has to step on to obtain her goals, and one thing she forgot is what goes around comes around, if she becomes the nominee, the Republicans will be like sharks after fresh meat, they will not let her and Bill Clinton return to the White House, and all this 35 years of experience doing what, I would like all the Hillary supporters to name some of her accomplishments with her 35 years, experience and post it so we can see. as for Obama, he was trying to stay positive, but no Hillary had to go negative, America is tired of the old politics, that's why nothing gets done, because of too much partisan in congress and the senate, we need a change, if you think that the Republicans will not air the Clinton's dirty laundry, then guess again, she thinks she been scrutinized, wait until Karl Kove gets through her, at least Obama don't carry as much baggage as Hillary every body says Obama is all talk and no substance, to diane b, who said she wanted honesty in a President, like when Bill Clinton said "I did not have sex with that woman",and all the lies Hillary has told, so there goes your theory, yes I went there, honesty cuts both ways! I've heard a lot of people said if Hillary is the nominee they will sit this election out, it will show democracy didn't work, because she will whine and play on peoples fears to win the White House, and that is just pathetic, way to go Democratic party. it is a sad day when people have to lie, cheat, and undercut others to get ahead, what kind of morals are we teaching our kids, America is better than that when I hear people say he is not qualified, maybe in eight years, I got news for them tommorrow is promised to no one. so get over yourself. because the Repbulicans are going to take her down if she is the nominee, there are young kids inspired that were never before, in the process of this election, kids as young 10, 12 and up even though they can't vote, and it will all be taken away, because we as adults can't get past the pettiness, hunger for power of an indvidual, this party will be splintered, as far as Hillary is concerned, no matter who gets damaged as long as she is becomes the first female President, will it be worth it to shatter the dreams of those who particpated in the process for the first time? I guess not.
This is 'spin', plain and simple. I find it interesting that you do not blame Obama for dragging it out, in what is basically a dead heat for the nomination.
Robert D Feinman has the right of it, these are fairly mild 'attacks', and Obama has stumbled on his own. Better we see his 'glass jaw' now, than in the final days of the presidential election showdown, don't you think? That way we can truly see if he has the staying power necessary to win.
HRC will spoil the party; as she fails to take into account that politics and emotions are sisters.
Once one damages the emotions of his/her supporters that politician is finished. She has proudly described herself as a 'full canvas' and Obama a blank slate. Her foreign policy experience --attending a conference in Beijing and being the "guest of honor" at other such soft moments,in mostly developing countries. And that is her experience.
HRC-- politics is more an art than science and your ability to use either to your advantage for long-time benefit, has failed. Once you are not able to inspire the people-- the momentum ends.
You were supposed to be the candidate to bring the party together given the 'intuitive' skills of women. Instead you have succeeded to turn the party up-side- down. Cannot see a win for you or the party in November. Obama even if imperfect, as so many are, brings excitement and authenticity.
I fail to see that ever coming from your team, given the negatives have taken over!!
What are the chances that Obama can take Pennsylvania?
And it seems like this might provide pretty strong incentive for Obama to move a little to the left on trade and labor issues in order to secure the USWA endorsement, which would be huge there. But he'd have to be a little more aggressive in the economic populism, and a little more aggressive on plans for manufacturing rejuvenation. That could be done simply through dedication to a major federal investment in infrastructure rebuilding and the green industries development that he's already talking about. And being much more concrete about labor and environmental standards in trade deal.
it's nice to see that mr. reich is so loyal to his previous employers. kind of touching. if it weren't for them no one would even know his name, or care about anything he has to say. sad. very sad. i wonder who he'll be stabbing in the back next. as for the merits of his miserable case, barely 100 pledged delegates separate ms. clinton and the venerable mr. obama. hardly a difference she can't overcome. or one that makes him inevitable.
Thank You for this excellent post, Dr. Reich, we need more prominent democrats to tell HRC to stop the negative attacks and run a positive campaign that respects the Democratic caucus or drop out.
As a red state Democrat, I know that an HRC candidacy would kill any chance we have of electing democrats in our state. Republicans are tired of Bush, but are never going to support a Clinton.
Clinton has ticked me off many times this campaign, to the point that I probably wouldn't vote for her and I definitely would not donate or volunteer for her campaign.
Bill's comments about Jesse Jackson in S. Carolina, HRC calling McCain more qualified than Obama, her hypocritical attacks on Obama for NAFTA, digitally making Obama look blacker in her ads, her soliciting funds for illegal 527 groups, her attempts to try to get superdelegates to vote different from the pledged delegates, her attempts to count delegates from Florida and Michigan, her ridiculous attempts to tie Obama to the Weather Underground, her false claims of plagarism, these all show that Hillary puts her own future above the well being of the Democratic party, the democratic process, and the country.
Anon,
I support Hillary because she is the most qualified candidate. I also support her as the first woman President in our country´s history. It it time for gender discrimination to stop. Don´t you agree?
Who do you support? Grandpa Munster McCain and 100 more years of war-occupation in Iraq?
Jon,
Study the process!
There isnt a rule that says whoever has the largest number of pledged delegates, fewer than the required total for nomination should automatically be named the candidate. We need to allow the process to work and go to the Convention.
Second, there were not attack ads. The 3am call ad was not an attack.
All the other so called attacks were FROM the Right Wing and have been on the net for MONTHS. They are on the GOP discussion boards and Hannity, Limbaugh and others have been discussing them for MONTHS.
Even if Hillary were to drop out tomorrow, you can bet the Right Wingers will swift boat Obama with a hundred times the force than now. Dont forget what happened to Gore or Kerry. Their attacks do not have to be true. The issue is, can Obama withstand those attacks. He is NOT Vetted!!
Democrats must win in November.
Personally, I would like to see Obama as VP.
He will gain experience and time and will again run for President in 2012 or 2016.
On the bright side, the dysfunctional Clintons will provide us with much comic relief if they do get back to the white house. Is this soap opera about to be rerun?
gs
lol
What's really scary here is, this posting has over 50 responses, and the far more important 2 previous postings has only 35.
If john McCain wins this thing, 30% of the responders to this post are going to understand a whole new meaning of suffering!
I agree with robert feinman's post, "Reich, just stick to economic matters!". Sheeesh, as if we need one more windbagger for their preferred candidate. Especially anyone talking from both sides of their mouths where they historically claim: A) we (dems) need more voter participaton and we deplore Republican efforts to disenfranchise voters; and then claim: B) we (dems) now need to dismiss the future votes of dems living in the remaining primary states because their votes (and I will vote for Hillary) or the giving of an opportunity for voting, will just create devisiveness.
That is such hypocritical dem #@S!
Are anyone of you really hearing what's your saying/blogging?
The dems have rules at the convention for ultimately deciding a nominee; if dems never want to have two viable candidates, then be upfront and trade the primaries for a smoke-filled coronation (and lose more credibility).
Obama does have the math strongly in his favor. Check out this article:
math
Models show overwhelming odds against her of ever catching him...but his supporters will have to be vigilant to keep the process clean. Not an easy task when dealing with Billary.
I pray some HOW they can put their egos aside & find a way to come together. I truly believe if this goes on too long & the mud gets too deep we are lost.
I also hope HRC knows what her husband has been up to for the last 8 years because we are all going to get a play by play if she gets elected. She brings with her the great distraction.
Enjoy your articles Mr.Reich!
First off, if someone is not for HRC, that does NOT mean one is a misogynist.
Speaking for myself, I'm an anti-war voter & HRC's refusal to admit that her war vote was a big mistake & apologize for it, is what keeps me from being able to vote for her.
I think it's 'interesting' how HRC supporters continue to minimize her war vote, as if it said nothing of her own lack of judgment.
For me, if it's HRC in November, I'll have to sit out an election for the first time in my life.
I can't believe that my family and I actually supported this woman. She will stop at nothing, including ripping the Democratic Party apart by her her scorched earth policy of trying to get to the White House.
This time it won't work. We're sick and tired of divisiveness and fighting. If this is all she has to offer, she should pick up her slime machine and go home.
Once the media starts to cover the Clinton fraud trial in Los Angeles (how much longer can they pretend it doesn't exist?) thankfully it will be over and she will be gone from out sight for good.
My teenage daughter burst into tears over this. She said "how could she do this?" She felt devastated as though she had experienced a personal loss. She is new to politics!
I had no answer for her.
Way to go Hillary. Destroy hope and aspiration.
Dr. reich says: "Not since Robert Kennedy ran for president has America been so starkly summoned to its ideals; not since then has America -- including, especially, the nations youth -- been so inspired. "
Being a independent voter was solid Democrat at onetime, I can only say that is really nothing but media hype and drivel. Obama is another Washington insider with nothing interesting to say about any of the major issues of the day.
Really it is time people stopped pretenting that the major parties offer any meaningful change except the faces change but the policies never do.
personally, i think the analysis that says that this drawn out fight makes the party stronger. i think the longer this goes on the more animosity will develop between the obama-backers and the clinton-backers, and ultimately one side will feel cheated if the other gets the nomination and will result in a poorer showing in the general. also, it's impossible to have a joint ticket because i don't think the two could effectively govern together and because that clip of clinton saying mccain is more experienced than obama would be used everyday in the general. a shame, really.
Maybe allowing the primary to run it's course and giving more people a chance to vote for their choice in the primary will help invigorate the democratic voters? I've discovered that it's hard to get excited over an election that is limited to people that you don't especially like.
The thought of an American dynasty composed of the houses of Bush and Clinton is somewhat nauseating. About the only thing missing is Chelsea marrying one of their kids.
Obama? When I watch him I get the same feeling that I got when Bush II was in his first primary. I suspect Obama, like Bush II, is neither genuine or honest. He uses a lot of the same tactics; making vague pronouncements that all will be well, in spite of being surrounded to evidence that all is NOT well, without working to make those pronouncements into reality. I don't trust him.
(Sorry if this goes on twice, I'm not sure it made it the first time)
Hmmm, Reich mentions Robert Kenndy.
RFK ran for the Presidency in 1968. His qualifications:
1. Attorney General of the US, 3 years.
2. Senator from NY, 3+ years, same as Obama.
He had no state government legislative or executive experience. Most of hos work prior to 1961 was legal work.
Did that disqualify him? Was he less qualified than McCarthy or Nixon?
The "experience" argument is personal, not substantive.
A friend of my wife has worked in EPA for several years, never met a person more qualified than Obama.
So when I look at their past and present, this is what I conclude:
Obama is one who resolves conflicts. HRC is one who generates them.
Florida and Michigan will be seated via new primaries in the end.
And if Hillary does one thing that Obama doesn't do, it's take the big states. To even suggest she should drop out is downright laughable. Who is Barack Obama that he or his sycophants could think that everybody should bow out and leave him alone--just because he wants to be President? It doesn't work that way in the real world either. What a powder puff he is.
Furthermore, if I were her I would keep fighting just to make more time go by. The more time that goes by, the more of Obama we learn about. In addition to the unfolding of Rezko, the man lacks even a thin veneer of steel. He crumbles during impromptu questioning. He is only good with a podium and a controlled crowd.He can't even take a tap much less a punch.
I think everybody trying to tell Hillary or anybody else what to do is beyond audacious and bordering upon hilarious. Neither of these two people can win enough delegates to become the nominee, so neither of them have to leave this race at this point. And since they both "claim" they want the "people" to decide, they shouldn't have a problem going toe to toe in Florida and Michigan.
Over and out.
Dee,
First, regarding your remarks above: Yes, I understand “the process.”
The “process” according to the Clintons is this: “It’s all about us. So we will do whatever is needed to win. Even if it hurts the Democratic Party.”
We seen all this Clinton Drama before. Over and over. It has been a huge waste of national time and resources (remember Monica? Whitewater? Cattle Futures? Incriminating billing records that suddenly re-appeared in Hillary’s office and which she knew "nothing" about?, etc. etc.)
Do we want to go through all that (and very likely more) once again?
Bill brought international shame upon the office of the president. Hillary stood by him. It's time for the two of them to step aside.
Second: above you say that Hillary has not made attacks on Obama or run attack ads? Well,
1. What about Hillary calling McCain more qualified than Obama? (Just to help herself win the nomination, she smears Obama by complimenting McCain!).
2. What about Hillary’s highly hypocritical attacks on Obama regarding NAFTA, when Hillary herself praised NAFTA during her Senate campaign in New York state? (Nafta was passed under Bill Clinton, as you know. Hillary said not one public word against it then.)
3. What about Bill's highly negative and racial charged comments about Jesse Jackson?
4. What about Bill’s reference to Obama as a “fairy tale.”
5. What about her sad, ridiculous and false claims of plagiarism?
6. And what about that negative, “scary”, dark attack ad implying she – and not Obama -- had lots of national security experiencel? A lie. Her role at the Clinton White House consisted of: A) closed-door sessions on health care that failed, B) ceremonial and social occasions of state, and C) traveling about the country campaigning. That’s NOT national security. In fact, she didn’t even have a security clearance at the White House. She was not allowed in those types of meetings.
So you err when you say that the Clintons have not been attacking Obama.
In short, Hillary wants to win the nomination, and is going to blow the party up in order to do it.
She’s putting her own selfish ego above the well-being of the Democratic party, and the country.
Because it’s all about her.
Obama appears to me to be a decent man and a straight talker. Someone we can feel good about. And someone we can trust.
He does not automatically alienate people the way Hillary does.
He will be much better at compromising and getting things done.
Under a Hillary presidency, we’ll just get more and more of the same bitter, do-nothing partisanship. Wars of words. Yes, it feels good to complain about the Republicans but in the end this approach has no goal other than getting safely re-elected by people who mistake “fighting” for leadership.
Finally, You say Obama isn’t “vetted” (meaning, we don’t know much about him).
Well, for starters, one of the most revealing things a person can do is release his/her tax returns.
Obama has done this. But Hillary has refused.
So what is Hillary hiding? Her tax records and those of her husband (they file jointly) and of Bill’s foundations would tell us who has given them money and therefore who might expect favors from them if she’s elected.
Obama has released his returns. She refuses. What is she hiding?
I’m a registered Democrat, from a Democrat family, who was a conscientious objector during the Vietnam War.
I supported McGovern, Mondale, Carter, Bill Clinton (I regret to say) and even held my nose and voted for Kerry.
I voted for Obama in the primary and have also sent him a small contribution.
But if we Democrats allow the Clintons to hijack the process, and to keep changing the rules, and if we Democrats allow her to continually redefine “the process” so that it favors her, and if we Democrats allow her to steal this nomination, then I’m voting for McCain.
That’s right. I won’t just sit out the election like some other Obama supporters, I’ll vote Republican. My vote won’t be so much “for a candidate” as it would be a vote “against an entire party”, one that’s completely lost its way. A party that set some firm rules (like the one on not seating delegates from FL and Mich) and then started talking about changing them – only because one candidate wants it that way.
A candidate (Hillary) who is fighting, not for us, but only for herself.
Who will bleed the party dry to get her way.
You close you last post by saying “Democrats must win in November.”
Yet you support Hillary, the remaining Democratic candidate most likely to lose to McCain.
This election shouldn’t be about one party winning. That’s mere partisanship. We need a candidate that can rise above the party label when necessary.
I believe that’s Obama.
We’re lucky to have him running for the nomination.
Dee, You said:
'Anon,
I support Hillary because she is the most qualified candidate. I also support her as the first woman President in our country´s history. It it time for gender discrimination to stop. Don´t you agree?
Who do you support? Grandpa Munster McCain and 100 more years of war-occupation in Iraq?'
-------------------------------
And to that I say, as a educated and professional female, NO. I don't support McCain at all. I liked Bill Clinton alright but Hillary to me, is everything that women in power are accused of being. Crafty, whiny and undecided about whether she needs to be tough or not.
If there was gender discrimination to the extent Hillary supporters think, then perhaps Pelosi would be knitting booties somewhere and Madeline Albright would be a pianist or something.
As a woman, the biggest thing I CAN do is to vote with my brain. I just refuse to buy into the whole 'its about time a woman took over' hooplah. A woman in the big seat? Definitely! This one? NO.
The biggest threats Mrs. Clinton is helping to foment by her behavior are: (1) loss of trust and support from the black community. (2) loss of trust from the rest of the Progressive base resulting in a total split between progressive Democrats and the Republican-Lite side of the party.
A big area of contention is Mrs. Clinton's determination to twist the process to get the illegal Florida and Michigan delegates seated at the Dem Convention so she can catch up with Obama's higher delegate count.
If she does this, she will be playing very, very dirty.
Democrats from FL and MI were given plenty of warnings not to hold early primaries or we would be subject to serious penalties. The DNC rules and warnings made it clear that Democratic presidential candidates would be prohibited from campaigning in FL and MI prior to early primaries.
Not only that, we were warned that our delegates will not count, and would not be seated at the national convention.
So suddenly the rules change?
What are rules for? Think about it and realize that they are made for good reasons. If there are no serious penalties --- many of the states would move their primaries to earlier dates. It would be even worse chaos than it is now.
There must be firm rules with stiff penalties, and a firm cutoff date.
So, here we are because the Florida Republican State Legislature (supported heartily by local Democrats who pretended to be forced into it) we went ahead with our early primary.
Forlornly we looked around at our Democratic Party summer convention but didn't see any presidential candidates (except the guy from Alaska) because candidates were prohibited by the Democratic Party from campaigning otherwise they would lose party support (funding).
It could easily be argued that Mrs. Clinton won the FL and MI primaries due to name recognition. Mr. Obama's name recognition was still low because he didn't have his campaign troops on the ground.
This is playing out as a terribly unfair deal. The candidates played by the rules but suddenly the rules change in mid-stream and Mrs. Clinton is counting on including the FL and MI delegates in her final tally.
So who is really being punished here? Seating the delegates will make the entire deal look like it was fixed for Mrs. Clinton from the beginning.
It's no big secret that the DNC and DLC favor Hillary and are playing a slimy role in manipulating things in her favor.
The Clintons do nothing to inspire new ideas and in fact are deeply entrenched with the powers-that-be. They symbolize the Republican-Lite trend that we've come to loathe.
We really do need someone bright and new like Barack Obama who can inspire us to energetic action. He also seems much more likely to have the capacity to inspire problem-solvers to think outside-the-box.
We need to have new, fertile ground to plant seeds for change. We need new directions. Mr. Obama energizes people and there's a lot to be said for that! Think of what it would be like to feel like the country is on the right track for the future.
What a concept!
Mr. Reich, as opposed to the preceding poster I greatly value your voice in these strange times, and I thank you for the fine work you did in the Clinton administration.
I would advise Hillary supporters (of whom I WAS one) to imagine the image of 20,000 demonstrators outside the convention hall in Denver chanting OBAMA... OBAMA... OBAMA... because that's precisely what we'll see if we feel that the nomination is about to be stolen in smoke filled rooms.
I was outside the convention hall in Chicago when I was 16, and I'll go to Denver with the same fury as a 56 year old.
The election was quite clearly stolen from us in 2000. Are we going to steal it from ourselves this time around?
Mr. Reich, as opposed to the preceding comment I can't think of many people in this country more justified to offer advice than a former Clinton cabinet member (and I have always appreciated your good work - Thank You from a hard working taxpayer.)
I would advise Hillary supporters(of whom I WAS one)that if it appears that the nomination is being denied whoever has the elected delegate and popular vote lead, you're going to see 20,000 demonstrators outside the convention hall chanting OBAMA OBAMA OBAMA...
I was in the streets in Chicago when I was 16 and I'm proud that I was, and as a 56 year old I'm ready to go to Denver ... with just as much fury...maybe even more.
The 2000 election was clearly stolen from us... are we now going to steal the next one from ourselves?
Sorry to repeat the message, had a registration problem, and one note - I was referring to the first comment by Mr. Feinman at 9AM, not the one that preceded mine. Apologies. I'm so pissed at Hillary for her Rove comment today that I can't see straight.
I can't handle another Bush, and I certainly can't handle more Clinton's of either sex.
www.debtamendment.com