Hillary to concede tomorrow night?

If millions of dollars were being spent to investigate Bush's role in the "war on science", who/how authorized torture, whether he did anything illegal, etc - would it automatically be a "left wing conspiracy"? Or would you consider that there might be something worth investigating? You don't investigate unless there is at least some evidence of wrongdoing - and that's where the Clintons continually went into the gray areas.

At the end of the day, her "my way or no way" policy caused a bi-partisan, Democratic sponsored bill that would have helped tens of millions of people the last 14 years to get destroyed. And led to no health reforms at all.

Really? You think it was only the GOP that was partisan?

Which is why I stated:

Looking at the Clinton years, you had a huge spike in partisanship and rhetoric that really led to problems down the road.

The Clinton years marked a huge spike in partisanship and rhetoric. Both sides adopted it. As much as you might like to think it's only Republicans, it's simply not the case. The GOP did it and it worked - so the Dems adopted the same strategies.

The Clintons aren't entirely at fault for it, of course - but they were a PART of it. Just as the GOP Congress was. And then GW Bush. And then the Dem Congress. You have to get away from that us-vs-them mentality if you want to get out of the cycle.

 

I'm very curious to see what she says on Saturday - it could go a long way to healing some of the rifts, or it could just make them much wider. And then I'm curious how much we'll hear from her after that (in a good or bad way), or if she'll stay more in the background. No matter what I think of her, she does keep herself relevant very well.

 

Except that what Clinton was impeached on had nothing to do with what the original Whitewather investigation was for. In that case there was little to no evidence of wrong doing just the idea that if you keep on digging you hope to hit something.

You've brought this up a few times but consider that her Senate term has been noted for her reaching accross the aisle so to claim she continues to remain some bitter no compromising partisan isn't supported by what she's done in the Senate. That especially should be noted since you claim that she is the more partisan one than Bill yet on her own in the Senate has proven to get along and get legislation passed with Republicans.

I agree with you that the Clintons adopted the war room strategy and used it to their advantage and also suffered from it too but I think it is somewhat unfair to blame them for it as there were many changes that helped to ratchet up partisanship during the 90's, 24 hour news cycle, talk radio and the Contract for America.

In regard to your initial point that you see the Clintons as power hungry who care more about power than they do about good governance I think this view is particularly unfair when you recall what the first real test of the Clinton Admin. was. The 1993 budget bill was not a bill that Clinton initially wanted as it not only raised taxes it also cut spending and dropped one of his campaign pledges of a stimulus package. Still he put his young candidacy at stake for it and in a famous speech on the floor of the Senate Bob Kerrey said that he didn't want to doom his presidency by voting against it and make Clinton's presidency to be a lame duck within its first year. With all of that pressure though Clinton stuck with it because he thought it was right and by taking an actually stand on the deficit it helped to restore flagging confidence in the economy and convinced Alan Greenspan to relax interest rates. I think it was partly due to that experience that the Clintons tried to press forward with the ambitious health care plan but that gamble didn't pay off. I think both of those are examples of the Clintons willing to stick their necks out to do something they thought was right for the country.

 

Just wanted to respond to this too as I think this is also an unfair view and not supported by the facts. Consider that Clinton did shake up her campaign a few times and even got criticized by some for shaking up her campaign while others pointed to that as a sign of turmoil in the campaign. So on the one hand she is criticized for being too loyal but then criticized for changing course.

The other reason why this is a very unfair comparison is that this would be like saying that if the Celtics lose the finals in seven games then Doc Rivers is a terrible coach. Given that Hillary Clintons campaign won more votes and raised more money than any primary campaign in history with, one notable exception, she did run a very affective campaign and still won major states when people were already starting to right her off in March, in fact she still won South Dakota and Puerto Rico when it was widely acknowledged by everyone outside of the Clinton campaign it was over. That is hardly the sign of a disastrous campaign as you are portraying but an incredibly successful campaign that came up against a marginally more incredible campaign.

So while you are free to dislike the Clintons personally I think you should at least acknowledge that they aren't completley the villians you make them out to be.

 

After the way Hillary was (understandably) roasted after her delusional speech on Tuesday, I think it's clear what we'll hear from her on Saturday. Her support for Obama will be enthusiastic and with gusto, whether it's sincere or not. Anything less than that and you can put a tombstone on her political future. The rush of her high-profile supporters to Obama after he clinched spoke loudly. I'm certain this is one event she will handle well.

Going forward, we'll just have to wait and see. Hillary's public profile will obviously decrease and we may not hear much from her until her speech at the Dem convention.

 

rocketsjudoka: you bring up some good points that I will try to address later today or this weekend (not enough time right now).

On a separate note, continuing my theme of posting all things negative about Hillary in this one thread , here's an article from a Clinton supporter about the "crossing the line from hard-nosed to unethical" campaign tactics I was referring to in one of my earlier posts.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/06/superdelegate_says_clinton_cam.html

Superdelegate says Clinton campaign used 'divisive tactics'


A Democratic superdelegate from New Jersey said he is worried that unifying the party behind Barack Obama may be difficult because the Clinton camp "has engaged in some very divisive tactics and rhetoric it should not have."

Rep. Rob Andrews, who supported Hillary Clinton throughout the primary season, disclosed he received a phone call shortly before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary from a top member of Clinton's organization and that the caller explicitly discussed a strategy of winning Jewish voters by exploiting tensions between Jews and African-Americans.

"There have been signals coming out of the Clinton campaign that have racial overtones that indeed disturb me," Andrews said at his campaign headquarters in Cherry Hill Tuesday night after he lost his bid for the U.S. Senate nomination. "Frankly, I had a private conversation with a high-ranking person in the campaign ... that used a racial line of argument that I found very disconcerting. It was extremely disconcerting given the rank of this person. It was very disturbing."

Andrews said the phone call came after he angered the Clinton camp by making some positive comments about Obama. He would not disclose the caller's name because of the private nature of the conversation.

Clinton's campaign issued an angry response to Andrews, who once had the task of lobbying other members of Congress to support her.

"Comments like these, coming so soon after Congressman Andrews' crushing defeat, are sad and divisive," said Clinton's chief national spokesman, Phil Singer.

Andrews stood by his statements and said: "I would hope that all Democrats can put this divisiveness behind them. I'm glad the Clinton campaign is finally about to change its tone." He said he made his comments only after his primary loss to Sen. Frank Lautenberg because "I didn't want people to think I was trying to win over Obama supporters in the primary."

The Obama camp declined to comment.

Andrews has joined other New Jersey Clinton delegates this week in saying he looks forward to uniting the delegation behind the presumptive nominee. During an interview on MSNBC yesterday morning, Gov. Jon Corzine, who was the leader of New Jersey's Clinton supporters, pivoted toward Obama, saying he "absolutely" will fight for the senator from Illinois.

 

Great way to start the healing process, and such unity effort is so convincing. If Bonzi Wells spoke to the media right after the trade to NO, that he was outraged about Rafer's "disrespect" of a great Franchise in NO, and TMac and Yao are such losers that he's so happy to stay away from them, all Rockets fans will jump up and down full of joy - he's the man, he did the right and ethic thing!

Not sure how many of you will be that joyful after losing one grand in blackjack. Not sure how many of you will be excited that you lost a long battle chasing after your dream woman/man, let me guess some may never get over it, and the good ones need some time to recover? But losing the presidential candidacy bid, even after winning 18MILLION votes, even after having done better than any previous candidates in primaries, Clinton is not allowed to have a few days to "settle down"? Just because she's Hillary, the so-supposed devil? Isn't it funny, that some people always want the DEVIL to act like SAINT?

Some seem to be "worried" about Clinton's political career, if she doesn't play nice 100% and some more. I think that worry is set in the wrong direction. So far, she's had a great career, and she does represent some views of some Americans, therefore, 18 million people voted for her in primaries. Even 8 million of them were Rush's effect as some may claim, she still got 10 million American support. She would be fine, politically.

Winners write history. It's not that the winners have the power to fabricate history, but winners have the incentives and power to make things happen. If you expect the loser to lead the unity, or you want to put the blame on the loser even before anything is done, that's loser's mentality.

Politicians are human. They are not saints, even if you love them that much, but they are not evils either, even if you hate them that much.

 

This pretty much proves to me most of these people are nothing but political whores that will throw themselves at the highest bidder or the latest winner.

 

The primary is over, the Dems have a candidate, what's the point of those individual endorsement any more?

 

Do we even want that to happen right now?

 

Then again, shouldn't Obama the winner to reach out to unite? After all has been said to Bill Clinton, shouldn't Obama's camp try to "convince" Bill to endorse him, if they really need Bill? What does Bill have to lose anyways? He is and will be former president forever.

 

I think Hillary will be endorsing on behalf of Clinton Inc, which includes Bill and all their operatives. The Evil Empire has either struck a self-serving deal (of which Obama is completely unaware) or has a nefarious secret plan. But she will be endorsing to protect her political career and nothing else. This sentiment will be posted here to nodding agreement.

Major will not like the words, or the tone of her endorsement. He will post a disapproving article. Or six. Jorge's post count will go up as he giggles so hard chocolate milk sprays out of his nose. Outrage and hilarity will ensue.

I am so looking forward to it.

 

I wouldn't expect too much from Bill. He seems more interested in his speaking tours, and in potificating as an ambasador of sorts. He was painfully out of practice when campaigning on behalf of Hillary.

Plus he was pretty much demonized by the Obama campaign (some of it justifiably) so I'm not sure they're even wanting him involved. It's too bad really....because his approval rating was amazingly good when he left office --even after the scandals and impeachment. He's an amazing speaker. I think he would be a huge asset in the campaign.

Hillary's role will be more interesting. She seems more "into" the game at this point.

 

Certainly - and the reason Lewinsky was uncovered was that the GOP did the crazy investigation. However, part of the reason the investigation kept growing and going into new areas is that the Clintons kept giving them new material to work with - Filegate, Travelgate, etc. Both parties were responsible here, certainly, but it doesn't change the fact that they kept skirting the boundaries of what was possibly legal and certainly ethical.

I know she was loved by the New York GOP, and I was very impressed by that - but a lot of that was that she was very effective at bringing back pork to the state. What major bi-partisan stuff did she accomplish in her 8 years in the Senate though?

But you're right - her record in the Senate is less adversial than her reputation. Most of my opinions of her partisan-ness come from what Republicans think of her both in polls and in everyday interactions, along with her past attitude towards the right (right-wing conspiracy, etc). There's not a person in the Democratic Party that seems to be more hated by the right.

That's definitely true - and it will be interesting to see if this is just a permanent part of our politics now due to the changes you cite, or if it's more innate to Bush and Clinton. I suspect a lot of is due to the individuals and their attitude towards governing, but I could certainly be wrong.

I agree with all of this - I thought Clinton was great for the first part of his term, and really in the middle there he did a good job as well. I don't know that he was initially what he ultimately became (I didn't follow politics as closely in the early/mid 90's), but somewhere during the 8 years, it changed. It may have the impeachment and all the investigations and all of that - but by the end of it, he was much more the combative type - and it also might not have been a bad thing for his circumstances. But today, I think you need someone who's able to rebuild some of the relationships that are fractured between the parties, or major issues that need to be dealt with aren't going to get resolved. In terms of the change over time - this may be why a lot of people seem to see Obama as similar to the 1992 Clinton. Obama could change as well - there's really no way to know until you're in the position of power.

 

I disagree with this part entirely. Edwards and Romney and Huckabee and numerous others losing did mean they lost because of a bad campaign - they lost due to other circumstances. Guiliani, on the other hand, lost because of a bad campaign strategy. He may have lost anyway, but it was clear that his campaign sucked.

Hillary got criticized massively for her campaign decisions early on - no one criticized the shakeups except to point out they should have been done a long time ago. Yes, it got pointed out that it was a "campaign in turmoil" - but that's kind of the point. It *was* a campaign in turmoil - which is the evidence of a badly run campaign. Notice after those people were finally removed, how much better the campaign ran for her and how much better she did - but it was too late at that point. Here are some examples:

1. The senior advisors were publicly bickering back and forth. Everyone in the campaign hated Mark Penn - and he was in charge of both strategy and polling, which is one of the big things you don't do in a campaign. But the Clintons were loyal to him. And they were never willing to make hard decisions. The two camps would fight over message and the result was Hillary kept changing message every few weeks.

2. Clinton's closest advisor (Doyle?) was too scared to tell her that the campaign was running out of money. How messed up is that? She wasn't super-competent, but she was loyal and that why she was in the position in the first place.

3. They had no post-Super-Tuesday strategy or infrastructure. Meanwhile, they were throwing money around in the early primaries. Wolfson got paid more per month than Obama's top people did in a year. They threw extravagant parties, stayed at the Bellagio in Vegas, etc. Meanwhile, they had no one looking forward. And that's when they got their assed kicked - the 11 post-Tuesday losing streak was when she lost it.

Yes, she got a whole lot of votes and kept it sorta-close, but the reality is that she came in with enormous advantages. She had the support of much of the state and national leadership. She had infrastructure from the 90's in every state. She had vast name recognition across the board. If the two campaigns had been run equally well, it would have been a solid Hillary win. Her loss is much to blame on the quality of her campaign management.

Certainly true - they are very smart, capable people. But they have their flaws, and those flaws were their undoing in this campaign. And I think those flaws would make them a bad choice for the Presidency in today's environment.

Here's an article from today about the Clinton campaign's issues:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0608/10910.html

As campaign ends, was Clinton to blame?


Hillary Rodham Clinton’s 16-month bid for the presidency transformed her public image from that of a remote, ever-calculating and hyper-ambitious candidate into a sort of female version of Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell — warm, earthy, tough and flying by the seat of her pantsuit into the occasional gaffe.

But at the heart of the campaign was a candidate who changed little, and whose managerial weaknesses — loyalty, distance and a damaging indecisiveness — became central features of her campaign, from the January day that she was forced into a premature announcement of her run to the hour that she was forced to withdraw. To a striking degree, the campaign was propelled by outside forces and its own mistakes, rather than by anything resembling a plan.

Clinton’s campaign, and its series of reactive decisions, began in the fall of 2006, when she and her close advisers began discussing when the campaign should begin. Clinton had initially hoped to launch her run in April or May of 2007, campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe told Politico last March.

“She wanted to wait,” said another close aide. “She was like, ‘What’s the hurry? What’s the hurry?’”

But suddenly, there was a hurry. Word reached Clinton’s camp that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama — whom they’d been watching warily — had begun to assemble a full campaign more rapidly than they’d expected. On Jan. 16, he launched his campaign through a new medium: an online advertisement e-mailed to supporters.

Clinton scrambled and announced her own campaign just four days later, and just the same way.

“They ended up reacting to what Obama was doing,” said Chris Lehane, a political consultant who supported Clinton. “It was a pretty decent launch, but fundamentally it was a reaction.”

The launch set the tone. As the campaign progressed, staffers at times found the candidate removed, or out of the loop, at crucial moments. On Feb. 21, when a former Clinton supporter, David Geffen, attacked her in an interview, her press staff went to war, demanding that Obama apologize for Geffen’s words.

The aggression was later widely seen as a mistake, and Clinton aides are still debating whether the candidate authorized it. One said she initially approved the attack, then tried, too late, to reel it in.

The internal chaos was perennial.

“There was a constant push and pull on what the overall message would be,” said a senior staffer, who recalled the endless delays on everything from Clinton’s speeches to her policies to her very schedule. “A lot of that paralysis went as high as her.”

Many who are close to her blamed the paralysis on Clinton’s lack of faith in her own political judgment, and reliance on her husband in political matters.

“She trusted him more than she trusted herself,” said one adviser.

The campaign’s biggest reactive decision, though, was Clinton’s commitment to the state that would become her Waterloo: Iowa. Mike Henry, a deputy campaign manager who had the ear of her campaign manager at the time, Patti Solis Doyle, penned a memo arguing that Clinton should skip the state, arguing it would likely drain her resources while handing her a defeat.

Almost instantly, the memo leaked to The New York Times, and instead of mulling her commitment to Iowa, Clinton had to react instantly: She committed to competing in Iowa.

It was already too late to catch Obama on the ground in Iowa — he’d begun hiring field staffers there months earlier. And the way the decision was made seemed to affect its implementation. Clinton didn’t spend as much time as her rivals in Iowa until the month of December, when she and her senior staff, sensing the urgency, suddenly moved en masse to the state.

Clinton even broke some of her taboos, bringing her mother and daughter to a frigid Iowa airport hangar to campaign with her.

But as the campaign reeled into Iowa, putting all its chips on the state, it made few plans for the future. The field director, Guy Cecil, had drawn up three post-Iowa plans, two campaign staffers said, all of which were rejected by the campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, who’d earned her position largely by virtue of having worked loyally for Hillary Clinton since the early 1990s.

As a result, when Clinton — as had been predicted by polls — lost Iowa, she and her aides were left with no set plan.

“There was not a plan in place — the plan was: Win Iowa,” said a senior staffer.

Clinton reeled into New Hampshire surrounded by a campaign team that was suddenly sure of defeat. On the road, she bonded with a new adviser, Doug Hattaway, a former spokesman for Al Gore, who was recommended to the campaign, Clinton aides said, in part because he didn’t share the panic that ran through her organization.

By then, staffers had begun to bring Clinton months-old tales of infighting and internal dysfunction — which would dominate media coverage of the campaign over the coming months — and complaints about Solis Doyle.

“After Iowa, everyone looked at her said, ‘Well, you were winning, so we didn’t feel the need to tell you all these things that were f---ed up,’” said an aide.

Still, Clinton hesitated. She fired Solis Doyle only on Feb. 10, after it was, in retrospect, clearly too late. As Clinton regrouped in February, Obama ran up the score, and by the time she found her feet in March, the delegate race was lost.

That spring, Clinton expanded what had always been an underrated talent: Her retail skill, and the personal warmth that friends had long celebrated. Supporters now say they hope the campaign will help her to carve out a new national role, one that she can take back to the Senate.

“She’s become like Ted Kennedy, the person who working people, disadvantaged people, gay people, women always look to for support,” said Fred Hochburg, a major Clinton fundraiser.

But Clinton’s focus on the retail campaign meant that she kept long hours on the road through the final primary in South Dakota as a reconfigured and somewhat more harmonious group of advisers continued to run campaign strategy out of her Arlington, Va., headquarters, with factions still rising and falling: Mark Penn’s more aggressive strategy was given credit for victories in Texas and Ohio, but Clinton later softened her attacks on Obama as others warned her that defeat was likely.

Last Tuesday night, the campaign ground to a halt, despite Clinton’s speech that night, which seemed more victory address than concession. Then, on Wednesday, Clinton’s staff and surrogates found themselves waiting, one last time, for Clinton to decide.

“Everyone, even her closest friends, were vaguely mystified by the Tuesday night message,” said a prominent supporter, referring to Clinton’s victory speech the night of her defeat. “Her message kind of stayed the same for the next 24 hours: ‘Just wait.’”

This time, they couldn’t wait: Supporters began to threaten to defect and Clinton, was forced to act one last time, announcing that she would formally end her campaign later that week.

 

Here's the evidence, by the way. If you have any counter-evidence, feel free to post it:

http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=1326

Long article, so I'll just post the relevant snippet:

Nice Try, Rush


Many will continue to live in denial about the Limbaugh factor. I say to them: Oh yeah, show me the ratings.

The Field’s analysis of exit poll data from March 4 (after the GOP nomination was settled and Republicans felt free to prank the Democratic primaries) to June 3, shows that 15 percent of Clinton’s vote during that period came from pro-McCain voters pranking the system, mostly at the urging of Limbaugh. That is 990,000 votes (and delivered to Clinton victories in at least two primary states that she would have lost without them: Indiana and Texas).

Senator Clinton knows this. She knows her claims of a “tie” in the popular vote are based on Limbaugh voters. No matter what she has said, she knows it. And that is another reason why, tomorrow, she will begin to rally around the nominee.