You're certainly entitled to dislike the Clintons's character or their campaign tactics but seriously you think they would govern no differently than GW Bush? Just compare the last eight years and the eight years prior to that and you honestly don't think there is that much difference? Breyer and Ginsburg aren't different than Alito and Roberts, James Lee Witt isn't different from Michael Brown, an executive order expanding and limiting drilling in national monument land not much different than one allowing for drilling?
There was also an MSNBC interview yesterday with a pissed off Charles Rangel saying it was very frustrating that she hadn't endorsed on Tuesday because the NY delegation was unable to comfortably endorse Obama without her blessing and he saw no reason she hadn't done it already. And there were reports (not sure if they're in the politico story) from Andrea Mitchell and others saying that top advisers in Clinton's campaign called Clinton supporting senators and asked them to help push her toward dropping out. Mitchell said she had no intention of dropping out this week until she was confronted by Rangel and several senators saying it was past time to do it and they weren't going to wait for her anymore. She was, according to Mitchell, very surprised that they felt that way.
Yes the odd thing is all the talk about what Obama is going to do to reach out her supporters. Already by her just staying in the supporters started going over to Obama. The longer she drew this out the fewer supporters she would have to use as a bargaining chip.
Major, I recognize that tensions are running high as you are still smarting from your unceremonious pimp-slap (yes, on the receiving end of The_Conquistador's gauntlet) from yesterday's Google/Dell/Obama failed analogy.... BUT... please try to keep your thinking cap on and not descend into crazy zombie, blank-stare, Obamatron logic on us again. Obviously I was referring to a re-vote in the absence of Obama being declared the nominee. Any 'tron would have the capacity to realize that he wins a poll today -- of course, Hillary is dropping out! But if you were to go back in time and re-vote in...say Iowa... and the caucus goers had knowledge of Obama's racial ties to American-hating racists, then you can bet your morning mochachino that he ain't winning Iowa. But nice try.
Here's the lede from the Today show today as well: On NBC’s “Today,” Andrea Mitchell said many congressional supporters were “angered and embarrassed” by Clinton’s decision not to concede Tuesday. On conference calls, 23 House members and eight Senators encouraged her to pull out. http://thepage.time.com/2008/06/05/morning-show-summary-74/ Deckard: You and The Cat can act like Major and I are being unreasonable here, but many, many of Clinton's supporters felt the same way we did Tuesday night and yesterday. This is also in evidence in the (already posted) piece by uber-Hillary supporter Hillary Rosen, entitled "I am not a bargaining chip, I am a Democrat."
I'd be angry too if my candidate was forced from the race by fiat and many key voters were disenfranchised. Obama tried to create a media-driven push to pressure her out. There is no denying that. He tried to suppress turn-out in SD and MT by announcing it while polls were still open. That's a low blow. His staff floated rumors of her concession long before she was planning to do so, to create the perception that the race was over. He did all of this because he was getting beaten in the key races down the stretch. He limped into the nomination and now is facing a large chunk of his party looking to vote for McCain. He deserves every bit of what Hillary has to throw at him.
Let's put an end to the myth that Hillary was picked on by the media and Obama got a free ride, right now.
If primaries were all about "one person, one vote" like the general election, parties could not reward states (and counties) for voting "correctly" in prior elections.
The fact that Deckard and the Cat don't think it is a big deal for Hillary not to concede on Tuesday is very concerning. I'm with Major 100% as are many of Clinton's closest supporters. Hillary Clinton has done some crappy things, character wise in the past 9 months, but what she did on Tuesday night takes the cake. How can you two not see that?
Let's not pretend the vitriol is one directional. http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/04/clyburn-clinton-supporters-flood-office-with-hate-calls/ An angry and upset Rep. James Clyburn said Wednesday that his office has been deluged with nasty phone calls with racial overtones since his endorsement of Barack Obama a day earlier. Clyburn told FOX News Radio’s “Brian and the Judge” that the callers identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters. Clyburn, an African-American and the third ranking House Democrat, said a white intern in his office was so upset by the calls that she had to be consoled by other workers and left the office early. “We got more vitriolic, nasty phone calls, really racially tinged phone calls in my congressional office, so much so, until one of the interns, a young lady who is not a stranger to politics … and she is not a black person, she left the office, had to be consoled because of the kinds of phone calls from people who identified themselves as Hillary Clinton supporters,” he said. Clyburn said some of the callers used “names that I would not repeat on this show today.” “I was absolutely shocked, could not believe that this happened. I could understand people saying, ‘Why are you doing this or why would you not support Hillary Clinton?’ but to call me the kinds of names I have not heard since the ’40s and ’50s,” he said. Clyburn said some of the callers threatened to “sabotage this election.” He added that he does not think Clinton understands her role in unifying the party. “I’ve got a call in to Bob Johnson, a good buddy of mine, he’s a big supporter of Hillary Clinton, he’s now pushing for her to be on the ticket as VP. And I’m gonna tell him today they’d better really raise their voices because this kind of stuff is lethal,” Clyburn said. The House majority whip later told FOX News that the nomination of a black man as a major party presidential candidate demonstrates the distance the United States has come in a short term. “I think historically it means in the 60th year since Strom Thurmond walked out of the party on the issue of race, our party has decided that it’s time to turn the page on that issue in society,” he said referring to the late Dixiecrat turned Republican senator who was later discovered to have fathered a child with a black woman who worked as the family maid. But Clyburn tempered his enthusiasm for Obama’s nomination, saying that there “are always pockets in this country of people who cannot find it in themselves to grow up. And to the extent which people fail to mature, we’ll still have some work to do.”
Looking at results, no - I don't think they are similar. Instead of getting right-leaning judges, you'd get left-leaning judges, etc. But in terms of methodology and rationalization, yes, I think they would be similar. But let's start with this - I don't view a Hillary Clinton administration the same as a Bill Clinton administration. They simply aren't the same. Hillary has always been more partisan. As first lady, she was the non-compromiser ( see Health Care). She was the one that looked at everything through a political lens first ("right wing conspiracy", etc). So I don't think that the comparison between the Bill Clinton and GW Bush years is quite accurate, though I do think it partially is. Looking at the Clinton years, you had a huge spike in partisanship and rhetoric that really led to problems down the road. Certainly, a lot of that was Newt and the GOP Congress - but the Clintons played a role too. For example, when the GOP took control of everything, they marginalized the Dems far more than in the past. When the Dems took back control of Congress, they did the same, in a sort of revenge. In a Hillary administration, you'd expect more of the same - after all, the right is the "enemy". Obama is the opposite - even if he disagrees, he doesn't demonize. You have a chance to get rid of that tone of politics that makes the minority party's sole goal to stop the other party from doing anything. Beyond that, you mention the Brown vs. Witt thing. They are different - but not due to politics. GW Bush has a problem with putting loyal people in leadership roles rather than qualified ones. Look at the Clinton campaign - all of the internal leadership was there due to loyalty, not performance. Donors and supporters were calling for many of them to be gone long ago, but she wouldn't do it - and it may have cost her the election. She surrounded herself with crap because they were loyal to her - not because they deserved it. Very similar in style to the Bush administration. I'd also suggest that both administrations are/would be power-brokers. They are interested in having and accumulating power. That's how you start skirting the gray lines of ethics and legality. In Bush's case, you got torture, the Iraq war justifications, the war on science, etc. In the first Clinton admin's case, it's how you got things like Filegate, Travelgate, pay-for-Pardons, Whitewater and all the random scandals they had. You can blame the endless investigations on the GOP, but the fact was that the Clintons kept doing things that may not have been technically illegal, but they certainly were ethically questionable and were in a legal gray area - and that's how you end up being investigated all the time. So yes, I see a lot of similarities in how those two administrations would be run. One would be on the left in regards to policy issues and one would be on the right, but the underlying thought processes would be the same.
Regarding "right wing conspiracy" what do you call the millions of dollars of private investigation fees and law suits spent on getting the Clintons (not to mention the whole Ken Starr debacle) just politics as usual? Have the Democrats or any other losers in a general election done this? Are you familiar with this? Maybe you just consider the word "conspiracy" to be beyond the pale? Hillary is widely criticized for not compromising enough with other members of Congress for instance on health care. However, her whole bill was a compromise with the insurance companies that would give them a central role, but they rejected it. You give some proof for your claim that the GOP of Newt and Tom Delay was partisan, but none that the Clinton's played a role. MOre proof that the Republicans were partisan. I'm not sure this is true to the same extent, but of course it is hard to blame the Clintons for this as it happened 6 years after they were out of the presidency.
For what it is worth, I thought it was pretty disgraceful for Hillary not to endorse on Tuesday night. Again for what it is worth, so did my wife, a Hillary alternate to the state convention. I think her behavior on Tuesday night may very well have been the last straw on any VP chance for her.
