Some of y’all jumped to disagree when I said yesterday I dreaded the inevitable Clinton win in PA — which, to add insult to injury, ended up being by exactly the margin everyone said she had to have to continue, not one percentage point more or less — but I’m not the only one.
As The New York Times said today,
For better or worse — and many Democrats fear it is for worse — the race goes on.
Of course, the Democrats have a different reason from mine for wanting the punishment to stop. For them, it hurts their electoral goal of beating John McCain. Me, I’m just sick of watching and listening — which unfortunately I can’t stop doing, not entirely. Trench warfare is an ugly thing, and can get monotonous. Isn’t this the time of year when should be turning our attention to more pleasant things?
Among my correspondents (that’s y’all, not counting you lurkers out there) there seems to be a correlation between those who want this mess to continue, and those who don’t intend to vote for either Clinton or Obama. Correct me if I’m wrong on that.
But if you want the bruising to go on because you lean Republican, what’s Hillary’s excuse?
Seriously, what does she think she’s accomplishing? Does she really still think she’ll win? I’ve seen nothing lately — including the PA result — to indicate that that’s likely. Or has she decided that if her party’s not going to pick her, she’s gonna make it pay? That makes as much sense as anything at this point.
There’s an irony here that’s just striking me. Hillary Clinton is demonstrating that she has just the sort of Churchillian "never surrender" attitude that will be necessary for us to have a good outcome in Iraq. And yet she, who voted for the invasion to start with, and has resisted expressing regret for that, has been forced to compete with Obama and other Democrats to see who could be the most convincing about wanting to get out.
As stubborn and determined as John McCain is about Iraq — no substitute for victory, and all that — if Hillary Clinton were to adopt his attitude toward our involvement there, no one could ever doubt her sticktoitiveness…
Related Posts
This battle has resulted in an epiphany for many of us democrats. In the 90s we were staunch defenders of the Clintons against the vast right wing consiracy. Republicans decried the dishonesty and underhandedness of Slick Willie. Our chickens have come home to roost as we are now experiencing first hand the cause of all the GOP upbraiding.
The Clintons are narcissistic, manipulative, conniving, and lie like a rug. I feel ya Newt.
Brad, I disagree with what I take to be your sense that Hillary cannot win the nomination, and that’s coming from me, an Obama supporter.
It’s very much like the late stages of a college basketball game, where the trailing team will foul repeatedly, sending the leading team to the free throw line. If the leading team chokes, clanks a few off the rim, the other team has a chance to pull it out at the end. Remember Kansas-Memphis? Hillary is stretching the clock at the end of this game by sending Obama to the free throw line. And he’s missed the front ends of a couple of one-and-ones.
Hillary is trying to keep the race alive…Obama is one more controversy (a la Wright or “Cling-gate”) from blowing this thing. And, Barack, there’s no “four corners” any more in the era of the shot clock (or 24-hour news cycle, take your pick). You’re not Phil Ford. You still gotta attack, take it to the rim. You have to beat Hillary in Indiana, and big in NC.
I don’t think it hurts either Hilary or Obama in the long run. They will be “battle tested” once the nomination is decided.
McCain is sitting on the sidelines now almost as the forgotten old man. Every so often, he pokes his head up to yell at the kids on his lawn or make some ridiculous statement like “No gas taxes for the summer will save the economy!”
Assuming Obama gets the nomination, what else will the Republicans be able to throw at him that Clinton hasn’t? That stuff will all seem like ancient history by the time November rolls around.
McCain’s only slim shot at winning in November would require him to distance himself from Bush as much as possible. Bringing Karl Rove on board makes that unlikely.
Bush->McCain is going to play out just like Bush->Dole. The old war hero goes down to the new guy.
The fight is symptomatic of the fundamental problem that the Democrats have as a party: it has become a coalition of generally narrow special interests who only ally themselves to each other in pursuit of their own agendas. When those interests clash it’s every man (or woman, as the case may be) for himself.
Obama had the perfect opportunity (as did the party, as a whole). He could have run a token campaign to “introduce” himself as a serious future contender then withdrawn from the race and thrown his support behind Hillary. She would have picked him as her running mate, and the two would have been unbeatable, entering office with a serious mandate.
But no… He had to have it all. As for Hillary’s part, the first reply by Randy E. sums it up pretty well. However, Hillary was the presumptive nominee, and without Obama’s opposition, she would have been – easily. After her presidency, Obama would have been very well positioned to succeed her.
Now the Democrats have thrown away an easy win in November, and their party’s leaders have highlighted the party’s basic constitution of self-interest, everybody demanding everything for him or herself as his or her self-proclaimed right at the expense of everyone else.
The longer the light shines on Obama and Hillary, the more disturbing things we learn about Obama’s anti-American socialism, and the more we recall about the continuous scandals of the corrupt Clintons.
…And the more the mainstream Democrat media gets bypassed by Internet conversations spreading the truth.
That’s a good thing.
That’s the way democratic elections should work.
There is a lot of dirt on Obama that Hillary can’t throw.
* She is also a socialist radical of the ’60s, just like Obama’s mama.
* Hillary has people with ties to the Communist Party running her campaign, too.
* Hillary has gotten rich, like Obama, off her title of office, from corporate payola, a lot richer.
* Hillary’s economic and social agenda is just as radical as Obama’s. She is just more pragmatic – preferring to sacrifice her socialist principles for more personal gain.
* Bill Clinton created the Al Qaeda mess. Hillary’s lying about it with anti-Bush slogans may appeal to rabid core Democrats, but it is just as repulsive to informed, patriotic Americans as the same rhetoric is coming from Obama.
OK, Philip, just as long as it’s basketball — no fair changing the game to bowling…
So how many three-pointers must Hillary throw in the last seconds?
Of course, she should be pretty tough under the boards, too, if Maureen Dowd’s characterization of her as the "50-Foot Woman" is accurate…
It seems that once again Lee has gotten it right. Lee you are a genius. So please tell me how do we reintroduce common sense the people of America ?
“Bill Clinton created the Al Qaeda mess.”
Gee, and I always thought that OSAMA started it out of frustration with American troop presence in Saudi during the Gulf War.
Have any more reactionary, conspiracy-theory driven, rhetorical hyperbole to share Lee?
Hey, zzazzeefrazzee, welcome to Lee’s world. We’re all used to it here.
Andrew Sullivan had the funniest line on his blog today I’ve seen lately about the way the anti-Obama strategy is heading: “By June, Obama will be a member of al Qaeda. By October, he will have been on one of the 9/11 planes.”
Some of Obama’s entourage already met with Syrian and with Libyan leaders. Both those countries are state sponsors of Al Qaeda.
Obama announced for the Senate at a party in the home of Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn, admitted terrorist bombers who spent a decade on the lam.
Today, the CIA showed video of a Syrian nuclear weapons plant which the Clintons said didn’t exist. Hillary also met with Syria.
Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton – choose your terrorist sympathizer.