A lot of people, mostly men, just don't seem to understand why so many of us, and we are not all women, are so upset about the treatment of Hillary Clinton. It is not just because she lost, although of course many - myself included - wanted her to win. Nor are we suggesting, as some commentators have speciously suggested, she lost because she is a woman.
She lost because of serious mistakes in her campaign and because she allowed herself to be outmanoeuvred by the unexpected star candidacy of Barack Obama. What we are upset about is the way the American (and much of the Australian) media became foot soldiers for the Obama campaign in vicious, hate-filled and often gender-directed coverage that denigrated and damaged Clinton's candidacy.
Rather than being congratulated as the most successful woman in American political history, she has been scarified for not leaving the race sooner. In previous contests, second placegetters Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown all stayed in the race until the very end, longer than Clinton, but were never subjected to a similar pelting. In fact, the pressure on Clinton to be a good girl and get out of Obama's way started back in March and continued unabated despite her winning nine of the 16 contests since then.
She could not take a trick with a virtually unanimous media putting the most negative spin on her every utterance. She was accused of being manipulative for crying, of "pimping" her daughter by having her on the campaign, for denying her gender by wearing pants suits and of being racist for simply pointing out the fact that millions of white people had voted for her.
She had to endure one male television commentator calling her a "she-devil", another stating she reminded him of "everyone's first wife standing outside probate court"; one who found her "castrating, overbearing and scary" while another fine specimen of the American punditocracy said, "When she comes on television … I involuntarily cross my legs."
None of these comments go to her policies or her political skills. They are outright misogyny. They infuriated fair-minded people who have been distressed at the way sexism has become a political weapon in a way we've never seen before - and which Obama did nothing to discourage.
Clinton ran a flawed race. From being the presumptive candidate in January, she found herself outpaced by Obama with his strategy of positioning himself as the candidate for change, of going to the grassroots and winning caucuses and by tapping millions of individuals for small donations on the internet.
( from a Hillary fan )
Friday, June 13, 2008
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
Clinton intentions remain a mystery - Latest Barack Obama news and views
the narrow but decisive loser of the Democratic nomination for president, is refusing to quit refusing to quit.
Her defiant victory speech Tuesday night and her campaign’s silence this morning have Clinton’s aides and supporters asking the same question she asked herself last night: “What does Hillary want?”
“She’s holding out for something – but I’m not sure what it is,” a usually well-informed campaign advisor who spoke to Clinton yesterday told Politico.
Other Clinton supporters, meanwhile, pressed her case for the Vice Presidency in a variety of forums, with congressional supporters led by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida considering a letter to Obama pressing that case, Wasserman-Schultz’s chief of staff said.
But they were slowed by the lack of a clear signal from the candidate herself.
Clinton is the strongest runner-up in the history of Democratic politics, a status that gives her an unusual amount of leverage on her rival, Barack Obama. But she’s also hemmed in by the reality that to be seen as a half-hearted campaigner for Obama, or worse, as causing his defeat, would be political suicide.
She especially needs help restoring support from an African-American community that had been her base – assistance that can only come from Obama’s fulsome embrace. She could use Obama’s help raising money to retire her debts, something she signaled with an aggressive online appeal for cash last night. Her supporters assume she has earned the prime speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention that Obama can bestow.
Those around her say that beyond the mundane negotiating points – a half hour in Denver, help raising money – there is a more personal, less tangible demand that she be accorded the respect she feels she earned in an historic bid that brought her closer to the nomination than any other second-place Democratic finisher.
Despite sending a strong signal Tuesday afternoon that she’d be open to a vice presidential nomination, Clinton aides said yesterday that while she may want to be Vice President, she understands that she can’t force Obama’s hand.
“It’s not something you can demand,” said an aide.
Nevertheless, Clinton appeared Tuesday to free her supporters to press her case, and Wasserman-Schultz wasn’t the only one considering an appeal. Aides made no effort to intervene in former Clinton aide Lanny Davis’s impromptu press conference Tuesday night, at which he announced he’d be circulating a petition to put Clinton on the ballot. Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson told the Washington Post that Clinton herself cleared his own appeal to House Majority Whip James Clyburn for a joint ticket.
“There’ll be an intricate tango between the two campaigns as they figure out a way to choreograph this so that she has her held high,” said Jonathan Prince, a former Clinton aide who advised former Senator John Edwards this cycle.
Her defiant victory speech Tuesday night and her campaign’s silence this morning have Clinton’s aides and supporters asking the same question she asked herself last night: “What does Hillary want?”
“She’s holding out for something – but I’m not sure what it is,” a usually well-informed campaign advisor who spoke to Clinton yesterday told Politico.
Other Clinton supporters, meanwhile, pressed her case for the Vice Presidency in a variety of forums, with congressional supporters led by Debbie Wasserman-Schultz of Florida considering a letter to Obama pressing that case, Wasserman-Schultz’s chief of staff said.
But they were slowed by the lack of a clear signal from the candidate herself.
Clinton is the strongest runner-up in the history of Democratic politics, a status that gives her an unusual amount of leverage on her rival, Barack Obama. But she’s also hemmed in by the reality that to be seen as a half-hearted campaigner for Obama, or worse, as causing his defeat, would be political suicide.
She especially needs help restoring support from an African-American community that had been her base – assistance that can only come from Obama’s fulsome embrace. She could use Obama’s help raising money to retire her debts, something she signaled with an aggressive online appeal for cash last night. Her supporters assume she has earned the prime speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention that Obama can bestow.
Those around her say that beyond the mundane negotiating points – a half hour in Denver, help raising money – there is a more personal, less tangible demand that she be accorded the respect she feels she earned in an historic bid that brought her closer to the nomination than any other second-place Democratic finisher.
Despite sending a strong signal Tuesday afternoon that she’d be open to a vice presidential nomination, Clinton aides said yesterday that while she may want to be Vice President, she understands that she can’t force Obama’s hand.
“It’s not something you can demand,” said an aide.
Nevertheless, Clinton appeared Tuesday to free her supporters to press her case, and Wasserman-Schultz wasn’t the only one considering an appeal. Aides made no effort to intervene in former Clinton aide Lanny Davis’s impromptu press conference Tuesday night, at which he announced he’d be circulating a petition to put Clinton on the ballot. Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson told the Washington Post that Clinton herself cleared his own appeal to House Majority Whip James Clyburn for a joint ticket.
“There’ll be an intricate tango between the two campaigns as they figure out a way to choreograph this so that she has her held high,” said Jonathan Prince, a former Clinton aide who advised former Senator John Edwards this cycle.
Obama-Clinton ticket: a dream or nightmare?
Picture a cozy weekend at Camp David for President Obama, Vice President Hillary Rodham Clinton and their lively spouses.
They'd talk policy and politics in the confines of the rustic retreat. After the long campaign and all the bruised feelings, Michelle Obama could finally reach out to Bill Clinton, as she recently said she's been wanting to do.
To be exact, she said: "I want to rip his eyes out."
Then added: "Kidding."
They could bring along Obama's national security adviser, let's say Samantha Power. She's the foreign policy specialist who had to leave the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster."
Now that Clinton is angling to become Obama's running mate, the question arises how two frosty rivals and their seething camps might come together without sticking flag pins into each other.
It's all pretty awkward right now.
Clinton's aides and surrogates are boldly pitching her for the No. 2 spot even as many of them, like her, refuse to acknowledge she's failed in her quest for No. 1. Instead, she said she's open to being Obama's running mate.
For months, she's cast her rival as wet behind the ears and herself as the one to be trusted to deal with crises in the middle of the night.
In an Obama-Clinton White House, he'd take the 3 a.m. call. She might or might not be awakened.
For his part, Obama has painted Clinton as a figure of another time and himself as a clean break from all that's past and passe about Washington. He'd be eager to bring in his own team, to bring "change," the coin of his realm.
Then there's Bill, a man of deep experience, in-your-face opinions and more baggage than a boxcar.
Even so, some Democratic strategists are salivating at the prospect of Obama and Hillary Clinton joining forces.
They are fixated on her electoral strengths and not at all on Oval Office atmospherics or what might be done about her husband.
Obama's side is trying to tamp down the veep speculation that threatens to overshadow his historic achievement as the first black presidential nominee, but in a way that does not seem dismissive of her and does not rule out the chance of offering her the position.
They can't afford to dismiss her, or, more precisely, the more than 17 million voters who turned out for her, including masses of blue-collar voters in swing states, Hispanics and older voters, especially women.
Obama picked his words with exquisite care when he talked about Clinton with supporters, directly addressing his but really speaking to hers.
"You can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country - and we will win that fight - she will be central to that victory," he said.
Clinton, of course, has already fought that fight for another president, her husband, and lost. She's also assailed Obama's health care plan, which does not mandate universal coverage, as seriously deficient.
Obama purposely did not address in what capacity she might take another run at health care. It's unlikely he knows. He and Clinton have yet to talk in a serious way.
The Illinois senator is famously willing to meet with difficult people, even Iran's hard-line, terrorist-underwriting, nuclear-developing, anti-American president.
But a sit-down with Clinton isn't coming together too quickly, days after he proposed that it happen once the dust settled.
After he secured the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, he called her in the evening, missed her and left a message.
She got back to him.
Then they ran into each other backstage Wednesday between delivering speeches at a Washington conference. Obama said they'd have a conversation in "coming weeks."
It's an awkward time.
And then there's Bill.
They'd talk policy and politics in the confines of the rustic retreat. After the long campaign and all the bruised feelings, Michelle Obama could finally reach out to Bill Clinton, as she recently said she's been wanting to do.
To be exact, she said: "I want to rip his eyes out."
Then added: "Kidding."
They could bring along Obama's national security adviser, let's say Samantha Power. She's the foreign policy specialist who had to leave the Obama campaign after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster."
Now that Clinton is angling to become Obama's running mate, the question arises how two frosty rivals and their seething camps might come together without sticking flag pins into each other.
It's all pretty awkward right now.
Clinton's aides and surrogates are boldly pitching her for the No. 2 spot even as many of them, like her, refuse to acknowledge she's failed in her quest for No. 1. Instead, she said she's open to being Obama's running mate.
For months, she's cast her rival as wet behind the ears and herself as the one to be trusted to deal with crises in the middle of the night.
In an Obama-Clinton White House, he'd take the 3 a.m. call. She might or might not be awakened.
For his part, Obama has painted Clinton as a figure of another time and himself as a clean break from all that's past and passe about Washington. He'd be eager to bring in his own team, to bring "change," the coin of his realm.
Then there's Bill, a man of deep experience, in-your-face opinions and more baggage than a boxcar.
Even so, some Democratic strategists are salivating at the prospect of Obama and Hillary Clinton joining forces.
They are fixated on her electoral strengths and not at all on Oval Office atmospherics or what might be done about her husband.
Obama's side is trying to tamp down the veep speculation that threatens to overshadow his historic achievement as the first black presidential nominee, but in a way that does not seem dismissive of her and does not rule out the chance of offering her the position.
They can't afford to dismiss her, or, more precisely, the more than 17 million voters who turned out for her, including masses of blue-collar voters in swing states, Hispanics and older voters, especially women.
Obama picked his words with exquisite care when he talked about Clinton with supporters, directly addressing his but really speaking to hers.
"You can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country - and we will win that fight - she will be central to that victory," he said.
Clinton, of course, has already fought that fight for another president, her husband, and lost. She's also assailed Obama's health care plan, which does not mandate universal coverage, as seriously deficient.
Obama purposely did not address in what capacity she might take another run at health care. It's unlikely he knows. He and Clinton have yet to talk in a serious way.
The Illinois senator is famously willing to meet with difficult people, even Iran's hard-line, terrorist-underwriting, nuclear-developing, anti-American president.
But a sit-down with Clinton isn't coming together too quickly, days after he proposed that it happen once the dust settled.
After he secured the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, he called her in the evening, missed her and left a message.
She got back to him.
Then they ran into each other backstage Wednesday between delivering speeches at a Washington conference. Obama said they'd have a conversation in "coming weeks."
It's an awkward time.
And then there's Bill.
On a night when Obama made history, Clinton's reaction was dangerously abrasive and selfish
The lead story tonight - my "lede," as we spell it here - should have been about the remarkable fact that a black man has been nominated by a major party to lead a developed Western nation for the first time in the history of the world. A man - in whose lifetime people with his shade of skin were denied the right to vote and to use public accommodations - who is now on the cusp of the presidency. It says something good about America, and I would like to have been able to dwell on it.
But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.
Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.
But Clinton, who did not post her speech in advance, gave Obama a much briefer and more perfunctory nod. She congratulated him on his well-run campaign, but not on his victory, which is historic and assured. She told her crowd that, though she is now defeated, she "will be making no decisions tonight." She urged her voters - naturally nudged up to 18 million, which exaggerates the matter by about a half a million votes - to visit her website and send her messages, a piece of demagoguery that merely ensures that a week hence, if she wants to, she'll be able to say, "more than 10 million of my supporters have written to encourage me to go on to Denver". And speaking of the convention city, when her audience began chanting its name, she did not of course try to stop them and say that a convention fight was not in the interest of party unity.
What's her game? It's this, I think. It's not merely to be vice president. Although apparently it is that. I take it she and Bill have decided that being Obama's vice-president for eight years is the most plausible path to the presidency. But she did not on Tuesday night merely try to make a case for herself as a good vice-presidential candidate. She held a rhetorical knife to Obama's throat and said, in not so many words: I'm still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that's the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don't choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can't lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that's putting the interests of the party first, isn't it?
Democrats had better understand what this means, and they'd better not kid themselves. With any person other than a Clinton, this whole thing would have been over in late February - that is, any other candidate who lost 11 primaries in a row and ran out of money would have been shamed out of the race at that point. Or if not then, after May 6 (North Carolina and Indiana), when it became obvious that she could not come within 100 delegates of Obama, no matter what happened with Florida and Michigan.
But the Clintons know no shame, and more importantly, there has been no referee who could end this game, no one who could say to a Clinton, "Enough now." Well, Democrats have to say it. Now. Enough.
I really wanted to write a happy piece tonight. I wanted to write about Obama's amazing victory and about Clinton's tenacity being finally tempered by an acceptance of reality - reality that she'd lost and reality that, while there are indeed good arguments for her being on the ticket, the person who won the nominee has the right to choose the running mate.
Obama, after a slowish start, ended up giving a good, fiery speech aimed at John McCain. And McCain's speech, though flat in delivery, laid out his themes reasonably well. A race between these two men will be a race between two people who - whatever you think of their politics - are presenting substantive cases to the country and asking the people to choose. That's going to be a good show. But someone has to send that sore loser on the sidelines off to the showers once and for all.
But no. Once again, it's all about Hillary Clinton, who delivered the most abrasive, self-absorbed, selfish, delusional, emasculating and extortionate political speech I've heard in a long time. And I've left out some adjectives, just to be polite.
Here's an interesting point for you. Barack Obama's speech, which featured a long and gracious nod to Clinton toward the beginning, was posted on various websites as early as 8:10pm East coast time. That means that Clinton - who didn't start speaking until 9:31pm, noticeably missing her introductory cue - and her staff had more than an hour to read Obama's speech and see that he was going to be more than kind to her.
But Clinton, who did not post her speech in advance, gave Obama a much briefer and more perfunctory nod. She congratulated him on his well-run campaign, but not on his victory, which is historic and assured. She told her crowd that, though she is now defeated, she "will be making no decisions tonight." She urged her voters - naturally nudged up to 18 million, which exaggerates the matter by about a half a million votes - to visit her website and send her messages, a piece of demagoguery that merely ensures that a week hence, if she wants to, she'll be able to say, "more than 10 million of my supporters have written to encourage me to go on to Denver". And speaking of the convention city, when her audience began chanting its name, she did not of course try to stop them and say that a convention fight was not in the interest of party unity.
What's her game? It's this, I think. It's not merely to be vice president. Although apparently it is that. I take it she and Bill have decided that being Obama's vice-president for eight years is the most plausible path to the presidency. But she did not on Tuesday night merely try to make a case for herself as a good vice-presidential candidate. She held a rhetorical knife to Obama's throat and said, in not so many words: I'm still calling some shots, buddy. You offer me the vice-presidency, or I walk away. But she has also forced Obama into a situation whereby if he chooses her now, he looks weak. So that's the choice she is hoping to impose on the nominee: don't choose me, and Bill and I will subtly work to see that you lose; choose me, and look like a weakling who can't lead the party without the Clintons after all. Now that's putting the interests of the party first, isn't it?
Democrats had better understand what this means, and they'd better not kid themselves. With any person other than a Clinton, this whole thing would have been over in late February - that is, any other candidate who lost 11 primaries in a row and ran out of money would have been shamed out of the race at that point. Or if not then, after May 6 (North Carolina and Indiana), when it became obvious that she could not come within 100 delegates of Obama, no matter what happened with Florida and Michigan.
But the Clintons know no shame, and more importantly, there has been no referee who could end this game, no one who could say to a Clinton, "Enough now." Well, Democrats have to say it. Now. Enough.
I really wanted to write a happy piece tonight. I wanted to write about Obama's amazing victory and about Clinton's tenacity being finally tempered by an acceptance of reality - reality that she'd lost and reality that, while there are indeed good arguments for her being on the ticket, the person who won the nominee has the right to choose the running mate.
Obama, after a slowish start, ended up giving a good, fiery speech aimed at John McCain. And McCain's speech, though flat in delivery, laid out his themes reasonably well. A race between these two men will be a race between two people who - whatever you think of their politics - are presenting substantive cases to the country and asking the people to choose. That's going to be a good show. But someone has to send that sore loser on the sidelines off to the showers once and for all.
Delusional Clinton Speech with an eye on VP post - Latest Barack Obama news
I'm sure plenty of people had strong reactions to that speech Hillary just gave. For my money, the two most outragerous sentiments expressed were (and this is from my rough contemporaneous notes):
1.) "What does Hillary want? ... I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, no longer to be invisible." Then, a little later, "...Opportunity--that's what I want for every single American… It is a fight I will continue until every single American has health care, no exceptions, no excuses."
When Hillary says she wants her 18 million voters to be respected and heard, but opportunity and health care for every single American, she seems to be saying, pretty unambiguously, that not giving her the nomination--not privileging the will of her voters--would be an illegitimate outcome. (Otherwise, why not say you want every single American "respected and heard"?) That's a pretty inflammatory comment.
2.) "To the 18 million people who voted for me, and many other people out there… I want to hear from you… I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders, to determine how to move forward, with the best interests of our party and our country in mind."
So she's going to leave it to her voters to decide whether she should accept defeat after having, you know, lost? What if every losing candidate left it to their supporters to decide whether or not to accept the outcome of a race? Who would ever accept defeat?
What good could possibly come of this? With Hillary proclaiming herself the legitimate winner, they're clearly going to say "keep going." If she actually does keep going, that's a disaster for the Democratic Party. And if she doesn't, you've just drawn a ton of attention to the fact that a large chunk of the party doesn't accept Obama as the legimiate nominee. No, worse: you've encouraged them to think that, then drawn attention to it.
What a disaster.
Update: Here's the precise version of the first quote:
You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? What does she want? Well, I want what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential, and I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible. ...
This nation has given me every opportunity, and that's what I want for every single American. ... And it is a fight I will continue until every single American has health insurance. No exceptions and no excuses.
A commenter expressed confusion about my point here, so let me put it slightly differently: Taken by itself, it's a little unclear what Hillary means when she says she wants the 18 million Americans who voted for her to be respected, heard, not invisible. Wanting people to be respected, heard, etc. is a legitimate desire, just like wanting them to have health care and to live up to their God-given potential. It's when Hillary says she wants the latter for everyone, but the former only for her supporters, that things start to get weird. That's how you know she's essentially saying, "Those 18 million votes should make me the nominee."
And here's the second quote:
But this has always been your campaign, so to the 18 million people who voted for me and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you'll go to my website at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.
In the coming days, I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.
1.) "What does Hillary want? ... I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard, no longer to be invisible." Then, a little later, "...Opportunity--that's what I want for every single American… It is a fight I will continue until every single American has health care, no exceptions, no excuses."
When Hillary says she wants her 18 million voters to be respected and heard, but opportunity and health care for every single American, she seems to be saying, pretty unambiguously, that not giving her the nomination--not privileging the will of her voters--would be an illegitimate outcome. (Otherwise, why not say you want every single American "respected and heard"?) That's a pretty inflammatory comment.
2.) "To the 18 million people who voted for me, and many other people out there… I want to hear from you… I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders, to determine how to move forward, with the best interests of our party and our country in mind."
So she's going to leave it to her voters to decide whether she should accept defeat after having, you know, lost? What if every losing candidate left it to their supporters to decide whether or not to accept the outcome of a race? Who would ever accept defeat?
What good could possibly come of this? With Hillary proclaiming herself the legitimate winner, they're clearly going to say "keep going." If she actually does keep going, that's a disaster for the Democratic Party. And if she doesn't, you've just drawn a ton of attention to the fact that a large chunk of the party doesn't accept Obama as the legimiate nominee. No, worse: you've encouraged them to think that, then drawn attention to it.
What a disaster.
Update: Here's the precise version of the first quote:
You know, I understand that a lot of people are asking, what does Hillary want? What does she want? Well, I want what I have always fought for in this whole campaign. I want to end the war in Iraq. I want to turn this economy around. I want health care for every American. I want every child to live up to his or her God-given potential, and I want the nearly 18 million Americans who voted for me to be respected, to be heard and no longer to be invisible. ...
This nation has given me every opportunity, and that's what I want for every single American. ... And it is a fight I will continue until every single American has health insurance. No exceptions and no excuses.
A commenter expressed confusion about my point here, so let me put it slightly differently: Taken by itself, it's a little unclear what Hillary means when she says she wants the 18 million Americans who voted for her to be respected, heard, not invisible. Wanting people to be respected, heard, etc. is a legitimate desire, just like wanting them to have health care and to live up to their God-given potential. It's when Hillary says she wants the latter for everyone, but the former only for her supporters, that things start to get weird. That's how you know she's essentially saying, "Those 18 million votes should make me the nominee."
And here's the second quote:
But this has always been your campaign, so to the 18 million people who voted for me and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you'll go to my website at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.
In the coming days, I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.
Questions To Ask About The Unity Ticket - Latest Barack Obama news
(1) Does Clinton want to be vice president?
It's clear that she is open to the possibility, as she says; it's probable that she hasn't had the time to contemplate the question with attention to all of the personal, professional and psychic ramifications -- what it would mean for her, her family, what she would do, what Bill would do? A person very close to Clinton, someone who talks to her regularly, someone who is reliable, said that Clinton ultimately does not want, in the sense of an affirmative desire, to be vice president, but would never turn down an offer.... in other words, she is an American and a patriot and a loyal Democrat and would not refuse a chance like that to serve her country.
(2) Would Clinton accept the vice presidency if it were offered?
At this point, yes, say her aides and advisers. She wants to do what's necessary to unite the Democratic Party, and the consequences of refusing an invitation would be pretty terrible.
(3) Would Obama consider her, seriously?
At this point, no. Judging by the attitude of those who are advising him, what turns Obama off the most about the Clintons generally is the sense that the party was hers and her sense of desert that she is owed something. Some Obama advisers were very much turned off by the presence of vice presidential talk yesterday although they attribute this more to Clinton's advisers than to Clinton. From my first interviews with Obama advisers and members of his family, I've gotten an overwhelming sense that President Clinton's Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky deeply offended them and that the incident, its effect on the country, and its aftermath, shape in many ways the Obama family's view of the Clintons today. (It is certainly true of some of his staff members.)
The thinking in the Obama campaign is that the party will, over the next few weeks, coalesce around Obama; that the fervor to put her on the ticket will diminish; that right now, the active phase of speculation is driving most of the unity talk, and if Obama, by mid-summer, has a comfortable lead in the polls, the demands will die down, especially if he treats her with respect.
(4) So how does he treat with respect?
He vets her, or he indicates that he will vet her, and he vets at least one of her supporters -- perhaps Gov. Strickland of Ohio; he promises her a prime-time speaking slot; he offers to let her shepherd his health care plan through Congress; he promises her regular input in his decisions.
(5) There will be lots of pressure on Obama to change his mind, though.
Unquestionably. And since we're in the moment, a lot of it is to be expected. You can be sure that Obama will do nothing rash, and that whatever he decides, he's going to take lots of time. If the pressure on him does not abate and if the support of a good chunk of the 17 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton does not migrate to him by the middle of July, then Obama might find himself in a quandary.
(6) So basically, the answer to the original question is: if Obama can coalesce the Democratic Party before he needs to pick a vice president, there's almost no chance that he will pick Hillary Clinton.
That's pretty much it, yes.
(7) What's the next step?
Well, Clinton wants a one-on-one meeting with Barack Obama at his soonest convenience to discuss her exit from the race.
You can expect some of her supporters to very aggressively and almost ungraciously spout the opinion that she is owed the vice presidency. I do not know whether Clinton herself will sanction these endeavors.
There may be a movement by her supporters to place her name in contention for the vice presidential nomination even if Obama nominates someone else.
It's clear that she is open to the possibility, as she says; it's probable that she hasn't had the time to contemplate the question with attention to all of the personal, professional and psychic ramifications -- what it would mean for her, her family, what she would do, what Bill would do? A person very close to Clinton, someone who talks to her regularly, someone who is reliable, said that Clinton ultimately does not want, in the sense of an affirmative desire, to be vice president, but would never turn down an offer.... in other words, she is an American and a patriot and a loyal Democrat and would not refuse a chance like that to serve her country.
(2) Would Clinton accept the vice presidency if it were offered?
At this point, yes, say her aides and advisers. She wants to do what's necessary to unite the Democratic Party, and the consequences of refusing an invitation would be pretty terrible.
(3) Would Obama consider her, seriously?
At this point, no. Judging by the attitude of those who are advising him, what turns Obama off the most about the Clintons generally is the sense that the party was hers and her sense of desert that she is owed something. Some Obama advisers were very much turned off by the presence of vice presidential talk yesterday although they attribute this more to Clinton's advisers than to Clinton. From my first interviews with Obama advisers and members of his family, I've gotten an overwhelming sense that President Clinton's Oval Office dalliance with Monica Lewinsky deeply offended them and that the incident, its effect on the country, and its aftermath, shape in many ways the Obama family's view of the Clintons today. (It is certainly true of some of his staff members.)
The thinking in the Obama campaign is that the party will, over the next few weeks, coalesce around Obama; that the fervor to put her on the ticket will diminish; that right now, the active phase of speculation is driving most of the unity talk, and if Obama, by mid-summer, has a comfortable lead in the polls, the demands will die down, especially if he treats her with respect.
(4) So how does he treat with respect?
He vets her, or he indicates that he will vet her, and he vets at least one of her supporters -- perhaps Gov. Strickland of Ohio; he promises her a prime-time speaking slot; he offers to let her shepherd his health care plan through Congress; he promises her regular input in his decisions.
(5) There will be lots of pressure on Obama to change his mind, though.
Unquestionably. And since we're in the moment, a lot of it is to be expected. You can be sure that Obama will do nothing rash, and that whatever he decides, he's going to take lots of time. If the pressure on him does not abate and if the support of a good chunk of the 17 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton does not migrate to him by the middle of July, then Obama might find himself in a quandary.
(6) So basically, the answer to the original question is: if Obama can coalesce the Democratic Party before he needs to pick a vice president, there's almost no chance that he will pick Hillary Clinton.
That's pretty much it, yes.
(7) What's the next step?
Well, Clinton wants a one-on-one meeting with Barack Obama at his soonest convenience to discuss her exit from the race.
You can expect some of her supporters to very aggressively and almost ungraciously spout the opinion that she is owed the vice presidency. I do not know whether Clinton herself will sanction these endeavors.
There may be a movement by her supporters to place her name in contention for the vice presidential nomination even if Obama nominates someone else.
SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH US SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL
SPIEGEL: Senator Hagel, your friend and Republican presidential candidate John McCain says that the United States Army has a moral obligation to stay in Iraq. Is he right?
Hagel: We have responsibilities, no doubt about it. We invaded Iraq, we are occupying Iraq and we have made Iraq dependent on us. By our actions we have done terrible damage to our own country and undermined our interests in the world.
SPIEGEL: What are the consequences?
Hagel: Our first moral obligation is to our own people whom we keep sending back to Iraq again and again. Four-thousand US soldiers have given their lives, over 30,000 have been wounded, many seriously. I just got an e-mail today from the father of a helicopter pilot. His son is going back to Iraq for the fifth time. That is not acceptable.
SPIEGEL: The question is: Should the US go or should it stay?
Hagel: We need to get out, but responsibly. Much depends on how we are going to engage Iran. That spills over into the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It spills over into Lebanon. It spills over into the relationship with Syria. We need a regional strategy, and in my view that means a permanent Middle East conference in which all Middle East nations participate. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more difficult it becomes to implement such a process. Many of the Arab nations don’t trust us.
SPIEGEL: You would bring back diplomacy? That was certainly not one of the strengths of President George W. Bush.
Hagel: That was a fundamental error. In the end it will be a diplomatic solution that will bring the Iraq War to an end. General David Petraeus has also said that.
SPIEGEL: John McCain clearly places much more emphasis on the military than you do. Are there any further differences?
Hagel: We must engage Iran and reach a point where we can begin to negotiate. I do not see an alternative. What has American involvement accomplished so far? The Middle East is as combustible and as complicated as it has ever been. Our policy has been disastrous. We now must apply all the instruments of power -- diplomatic power is part of that, as is trade and economic development. Certainly the military is a part of that and so is intelligence sharing. We have to build relationships and define common interests. Only then is stability and security possible.
SPIEGEL: You are, then, an advocate of America relying more on soft power than on the military?
Hagel: That's the way we will make progress. We have to use our economic and also our cultural strength. Trust is the crucial currency in international relations. We willfully diminished the value of this currency and we now have to rebuild it. Trust is more important than anything else. North Korea was a part of the Axis of Evil, but now the United States is using the instruments of diplomacy in the Six Party talks.
SPIEGEL: But that would mean that you are closer to Democrat Barack Obama than to your own party as far as foreign policy is concerned?
Hagel: Well, that’s right, but I don’t develop my position on foreign policy based on which politicians I support or do not support. I was espousing this position on Iraq and Iran before Obama even got to the Senate.
SPIEGEL: You didn’t follow him, he followed you?
Hagel: (laughing) He has accepted my position and my direction.
SPIEGEL: That may be an important prerequisite should you want to become a member of his cabinet later on.
Hagel: I don’t expect to be in anyone’s cabinet. I think I will be on the outside of government.
SPIEGEL: Your name has been mentioned in connection with the offices of Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State in an Obama administration. You don't like such speculation?
Hagel: I appreciate people having confidence in me. But I don’t expect to be in any government.
SPIEGEL: What should the Europeans expect from the next American president?
Hagel: Both candidates will have a new approach, more cooperation, a greater emphasis on alliances. Whichever candidate is elected, our European allies will see a president forging a stronger relationship. It was a grave mistake to alienate the allies. Both candidates realize that the challenges today are global and we can only deal with these challenges working together with our allies.
SPIEGEL: And what does America expect from the Europeans? George W. Bush has been an easy president, because it was easy for Europeans not to follow him, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hagel: A strong America is in the interest of the world. I often meet with foreign leaders and they know that the world is more dangerous when America is stumbling, bumbling and weak. America should lead, but through consensus and common interests.
SPIEGEL: Does the next president owe the Europeans an apology for America’s solo in Iraq and for belittling the West Europeans as “old Europe”?
Hagel: I do not think we should relive those times. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is disgraced and gone. Anybody who had anything to do with that is gone. There are books being written about them. Let’s go forward.
SPIEGEL: Do you also see a silver lining on the horizon when you look at the US economy? The United States has huge public debt and huge private debt. America consumes the most, but does not export enough. How can the United States restore its economic power?
Hagel: All the points you make are correct. We are the greatest debtor nation in the world. We have an enormous trade deficit. I look at it like a business -- you have a balance sheet: We are by far the largest economy in the world and the most flexible; we have ideas; the debt represents only a very small percentage of our gross domestic product. But you cannot continue to spend $600 billion a year that you do not have. We are spending $3 billion a week in Iraq alone. And we are going to have to do something about our steadily increasing costs for entitlement programs. The European nations have all had to deal with that.
SPIEGEL: What precisely do you want to change?
Hagel: We need to reform Social Security, reduce our costs for prescription drugs. I have submitted legislation in the Senate on every one of these issues.
SPIEGEL: Economically, America today is doubly dependent on China. China finances the enormous trade deficit and China supplies the country with a huge number of vital consumer goods. Is China a rival or a partner?
Hagel: It is the same question you can ask for America and Germany. Are we trade rivals? Yes. Are we partners? Yes. Are there tensions? Yes, there are.
SPIEGEL: You're comparing Germany to China?
Hagel: No. What I am trying to say is that every country has a multitude of dimensions. Foreign relations are always complex. I do not see China as a threat. It is a competitor who could turn out to be dangerous if the relationship is not managed right. If both sides are not attentive they could become, down the road, enemies.
SPIEGEL: It doesn’t look good for your own party. After seven years of George W. Bush, 81 percent of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track and only 27 percent have a favorable view. What went wrong?
Hagel: The party is in terrible shape and it is because we did not do a very good job of managing this country. We have gotten into two wars. We have run up a third of the national debt in the last seven years. So we have controlled the government and we have made a lot of mistakes. All the same, McCain and Obama are within the margin of error in the polls.
SPIEGEL: Is the era of the hawks in your party definitely over?
Hagel: I hope so. That segment of the Republican Party, the so-called neocons, held the Republican Party hostage much of the time. What this element has done to our party is clear now and I would hope that it will come back to the party of Eisenhower, even the party of Ronald Reagan. Today’s party is no longer Ronald Reagan’s party, who, contrary to his reputation, governed from the center. But he sat down with the Soviets, the great evil empire, and was able to get results, for example in nuclear disarmament.
SPIEGEL: You write in your new book about former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt visiting you in your office in the Senate, chain-smoking and complaining that “there are no more great leaders." Do you agree?
Hagel: Today, I don’t see any great global leaders of the stature of Reagan, Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher. They were important, whether you agreed with them or not. But as Schmidt also told me in my office, there will come a time when we will find those new leaders again.
SPIEGEL: A lot of Germans hope Obama is that someone.
Hagel: He could be. But until he is in office, you don’t know.
Hagel: We have responsibilities, no doubt about it. We invaded Iraq, we are occupying Iraq and we have made Iraq dependent on us. By our actions we have done terrible damage to our own country and undermined our interests in the world.
SPIEGEL: What are the consequences?
Hagel: Our first moral obligation is to our own people whom we keep sending back to Iraq again and again. Four-thousand US soldiers have given their lives, over 30,000 have been wounded, many seriously. I just got an e-mail today from the father of a helicopter pilot. His son is going back to Iraq for the fifth time. That is not acceptable.
SPIEGEL: The question is: Should the US go or should it stay?
Hagel: We need to get out, but responsibly. Much depends on how we are going to engage Iran. That spills over into the peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians. It spills over into Lebanon. It spills over into the relationship with Syria. We need a regional strategy, and in my view that means a permanent Middle East conference in which all Middle East nations participate. The longer we stay in Iraq, the more difficult it becomes to implement such a process. Many of the Arab nations don’t trust us.
SPIEGEL: You would bring back diplomacy? That was certainly not one of the strengths of President George W. Bush.
Hagel: That was a fundamental error. In the end it will be a diplomatic solution that will bring the Iraq War to an end. General David Petraeus has also said that.
SPIEGEL: John McCain clearly places much more emphasis on the military than you do. Are there any further differences?
Hagel: We must engage Iran and reach a point where we can begin to negotiate. I do not see an alternative. What has American involvement accomplished so far? The Middle East is as combustible and as complicated as it has ever been. Our policy has been disastrous. We now must apply all the instruments of power -- diplomatic power is part of that, as is trade and economic development. Certainly the military is a part of that and so is intelligence sharing. We have to build relationships and define common interests. Only then is stability and security possible.
SPIEGEL: You are, then, an advocate of America relying more on soft power than on the military?
Hagel: That's the way we will make progress. We have to use our economic and also our cultural strength. Trust is the crucial currency in international relations. We willfully diminished the value of this currency and we now have to rebuild it. Trust is more important than anything else. North Korea was a part of the Axis of Evil, but now the United States is using the instruments of diplomacy in the Six Party talks.
SPIEGEL: But that would mean that you are closer to Democrat Barack Obama than to your own party as far as foreign policy is concerned?
Hagel: Well, that’s right, but I don’t develop my position on foreign policy based on which politicians I support or do not support. I was espousing this position on Iraq and Iran before Obama even got to the Senate.
SPIEGEL: You didn’t follow him, he followed you?
Hagel: (laughing) He has accepted my position and my direction.
SPIEGEL: That may be an important prerequisite should you want to become a member of his cabinet later on.
Hagel: I don’t expect to be in anyone’s cabinet. I think I will be on the outside of government.
SPIEGEL: Your name has been mentioned in connection with the offices of Secretary of Defense or Secretary of State in an Obama administration. You don't like such speculation?
Hagel: I appreciate people having confidence in me. But I don’t expect to be in any government.
SPIEGEL: What should the Europeans expect from the next American president?
Hagel: Both candidates will have a new approach, more cooperation, a greater emphasis on alliances. Whichever candidate is elected, our European allies will see a president forging a stronger relationship. It was a grave mistake to alienate the allies. Both candidates realize that the challenges today are global and we can only deal with these challenges working together with our allies.
SPIEGEL: And what does America expect from the Europeans? George W. Bush has been an easy president, because it was easy for Europeans not to follow him, for example in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Hagel: A strong America is in the interest of the world. I often meet with foreign leaders and they know that the world is more dangerous when America is stumbling, bumbling and weak. America should lead, but through consensus and common interests.
SPIEGEL: Does the next president owe the Europeans an apology for America’s solo in Iraq and for belittling the West Europeans as “old Europe”?
Hagel: I do not think we should relive those times. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is disgraced and gone. Anybody who had anything to do with that is gone. There are books being written about them. Let’s go forward.
SPIEGEL: Do you also see a silver lining on the horizon when you look at the US economy? The United States has huge public debt and huge private debt. America consumes the most, but does not export enough. How can the United States restore its economic power?
Hagel: All the points you make are correct. We are the greatest debtor nation in the world. We have an enormous trade deficit. I look at it like a business -- you have a balance sheet: We are by far the largest economy in the world and the most flexible; we have ideas; the debt represents only a very small percentage of our gross domestic product. But you cannot continue to spend $600 billion a year that you do not have. We are spending $3 billion a week in Iraq alone. And we are going to have to do something about our steadily increasing costs for entitlement programs. The European nations have all had to deal with that.
SPIEGEL: What precisely do you want to change?
Hagel: We need to reform Social Security, reduce our costs for prescription drugs. I have submitted legislation in the Senate on every one of these issues.
SPIEGEL: Economically, America today is doubly dependent on China. China finances the enormous trade deficit and China supplies the country with a huge number of vital consumer goods. Is China a rival or a partner?
Hagel: It is the same question you can ask for America and Germany. Are we trade rivals? Yes. Are we partners? Yes. Are there tensions? Yes, there are.
SPIEGEL: You're comparing Germany to China?
Hagel: No. What I am trying to say is that every country has a multitude of dimensions. Foreign relations are always complex. I do not see China as a threat. It is a competitor who could turn out to be dangerous if the relationship is not managed right. If both sides are not attentive they could become, down the road, enemies.
SPIEGEL: It doesn’t look good for your own party. After seven years of George W. Bush, 81 percent of Americans believe that the country is on the wrong track and only 27 percent have a favorable view. What went wrong?
Hagel: The party is in terrible shape and it is because we did not do a very good job of managing this country. We have gotten into two wars. We have run up a third of the national debt in the last seven years. So we have controlled the government and we have made a lot of mistakes. All the same, McCain and Obama are within the margin of error in the polls.
SPIEGEL: Is the era of the hawks in your party definitely over?
Hagel: I hope so. That segment of the Republican Party, the so-called neocons, held the Republican Party hostage much of the time. What this element has done to our party is clear now and I would hope that it will come back to the party of Eisenhower, even the party of Ronald Reagan. Today’s party is no longer Ronald Reagan’s party, who, contrary to his reputation, governed from the center. But he sat down with the Soviets, the great evil empire, and was able to get results, for example in nuclear disarmament.
SPIEGEL: You write in your new book about former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt visiting you in your office in the Senate, chain-smoking and complaining that “there are no more great leaders." Do you agree?
Hagel: Today, I don’t see any great global leaders of the stature of Reagan, Kohl, Mitterand and Thatcher. They were important, whether you agreed with them or not. But as Schmidt also told me in my office, there will come a time when we will find those new leaders again.
SPIEGEL: A lot of Germans hope Obama is that someone.
Hagel: He could be. But until he is in office, you don’t know.
The dream ticket - Latest obama news and views
Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket for vice president creates a ménage-à-trois. Bill will be the unexpected roommate. Even if a President Obama can discipline Hillary and get her to play second fiddle, there is not the remotest chance that he can get the former president to accept such rules. Even if Bill Clinton wanted to rein in his newly prolific public expressions of rage and frustration, there is doubt that he is any longer capable of doing so.
Hillary, who likely desperately wants to be tapped for vice president, is going about it in exactly the wrong way. She seems to be demanding a kind of coalition government between herself and Obama, a definition of the vice presidency not likely to appeal to the president. It reminds me of 1980 when there were discussions of a ticket with Reagan as the presidential nominee and former President Gerald Ford as the vice president in a coalition government where the VP would have extraordinary powers.
Intended to reassure voters who were panicked by Reagan's "extreme" conservatism, the arrangement never came to fruition, a development which gave us the House of Bush.
Instead of conceding defeat and campaigning for Obama, auditioning for the spot of loyal teammate, Hillary insists on keeping her options open and vies for the spotlight with Obama, exactly what you do not want a vice president to do.
Last night, when Obama went over the top in delegates and could claim the nomination as his, Hillary organized a rally of all of her supporters, directly competing for airtime with the newly minted nominee.
Adding Hillary to the ticket would not bring Obama a single vote (except possibly for Bill's). Her supporters are divided into two distinct categories. The original Clintonistas were strong Democrats, party faithful, pro-choice, middle-aged and up, largely female and all white. But Hillary's recent backers have been downscale whites of both genders who were turned off by Obama's pastor, wife and other associates and were afraid he might be a Muslim in disguise. Unhappy about voting for a woman, they never really liked Hillary but turned to her when the alternative was Obama.
If Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, these latent backers of Hillary in the primaries might still have voted for McCain in the general. Their support of Hillary is purely linked to her opposition to Obama. Were she to join the ticket, they would vote for McCain anyway. After all, Obama will still be black and the Rev. Wright will still be nuts.
But adding Hillary to the ticket brings, along with her, Bill.
The public Bill Clinton has morphed over the past few months from a statesman and philanthropist to a petulant, angry, cursing, spoiled narcissist, accusing everyone of being sleazy and biased and in so doing fashioning himself as a foil for Obama. This unattractive image is not the right one for the bottom of a ticket in a presidential race. And make no mistake, Bill comes along with Hillary.
But the more serious problem is the public record that Todd Purdum, an excellent journalist, laid out in his Vanity Fair piece. Bill's relationships with billionaires, his pursuit of financial gain, his alliance with the emir of Dubai, and his acceptance of speaking fees and income from some of the least savory of types is not what you need to carry around with you in a presidential race. To put Hillary on the ticket is to confront nagging questions about donors to the Clinton Library and Bill's refusal to release them. It would be to inherit a load of baggage that Obama does not need as he tries to position himself as the candidate of change, antithetical to the corrupt and corrupting ways of Washington.
On her own, Hillary would be no bargain as vice president. She would never accept direction and never sublimate her ambition or agenda to Obama's. But with Bill in tow, her candidacy becomes even more fraught with peril should Obama be inclined to bow to pressure and put her on the ticket.
Hillary, who likely desperately wants to be tapped for vice president, is going about it in exactly the wrong way. She seems to be demanding a kind of coalition government between herself and Obama, a definition of the vice presidency not likely to appeal to the president. It reminds me of 1980 when there were discussions of a ticket with Reagan as the presidential nominee and former President Gerald Ford as the vice president in a coalition government where the VP would have extraordinary powers.
Intended to reassure voters who were panicked by Reagan's "extreme" conservatism, the arrangement never came to fruition, a development which gave us the House of Bush.
Instead of conceding defeat and campaigning for Obama, auditioning for the spot of loyal teammate, Hillary insists on keeping her options open and vies for the spotlight with Obama, exactly what you do not want a vice president to do.
Last night, when Obama went over the top in delegates and could claim the nomination as his, Hillary organized a rally of all of her supporters, directly competing for airtime with the newly minted nominee.
Adding Hillary to the ticket would not bring Obama a single vote (except possibly for Bill's). Her supporters are divided into two distinct categories. The original Clintonistas were strong Democrats, party faithful, pro-choice, middle-aged and up, largely female and all white. But Hillary's recent backers have been downscale whites of both genders who were turned off by Obama's pastor, wife and other associates and were afraid he might be a Muslim in disguise. Unhappy about voting for a woman, they never really liked Hillary but turned to her when the alternative was Obama.
If Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, these latent backers of Hillary in the primaries might still have voted for McCain in the general. Their support of Hillary is purely linked to her opposition to Obama. Were she to join the ticket, they would vote for McCain anyway. After all, Obama will still be black and the Rev. Wright will still be nuts.
But adding Hillary to the ticket brings, along with her, Bill.
The public Bill Clinton has morphed over the past few months from a statesman and philanthropist to a petulant, angry, cursing, spoiled narcissist, accusing everyone of being sleazy and biased and in so doing fashioning himself as a foil for Obama. This unattractive image is not the right one for the bottom of a ticket in a presidential race. And make no mistake, Bill comes along with Hillary.
But the more serious problem is the public record that Todd Purdum, an excellent journalist, laid out in his Vanity Fair piece. Bill's relationships with billionaires, his pursuit of financial gain, his alliance with the emir of Dubai, and his acceptance of speaking fees and income from some of the least savory of types is not what you need to carry around with you in a presidential race. To put Hillary on the ticket is to confront nagging questions about donors to the Clinton Library and Bill's refusal to release them. It would be to inherit a load of baggage that Obama does not need as he tries to position himself as the candidate of change, antithetical to the corrupt and corrupting ways of Washington.
On her own, Hillary would be no bargain as vice president. She would never accept direction and never sublimate her ambition or agenda to Obama's. But with Bill in tow, her candidacy becomes even more fraught with peril should Obama be inclined to bow to pressure and put her on the ticket.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)